The posts held by the respondents do not qualify as public offices since they lack the exercise of sovereign functions, making the writ of quo warranto inappropriate.

JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, C.J.

This writ petition has been filed invoking a writ of quo warranto against the 6^th and 7^th respondents who are appointed as Executive Trainees on 25.07.1991 on contract basis under the 4^th respondent.

2. At the admission stage of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge, after recording that the petitioner does not have interest for himself against the post which has been held by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation (KTDC) and in the writ petition it is alleged that the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 who are holding the post of the Manager in KTDC at the time of their initial appointment did not have the requisite qualifications, directed the Registry to place the matter before the Hon’ble Division Bench dealing with the subject matter with a further direction upon the petitioner to disclose his credentials by filing an affidavit for maintaining the writ petition as prescribed in the High Court Rules.

3. Following the aforesaid direction, the matter was heard by the Bench headed by Mr. Justice Nitin Jamdar, the former Chief Justice of this Court. In course of the argument, the Hon’ble Division Bench, in its order dated 11.11.2025, made the following observation:-

“2. The settled position of law is that public interest litigation in service law is not to be entertained, except a writ of quo warranto. The petition has been filed without placing on record as to how the post held by Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are public posts, nor is there any specific reference to any statutory rules prescribing qualifications which are not fulfilled. Thus, the basic pleadings for seeking a quo warranto are missing. This would entail dismissal of the petition.

3. At the request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, one more opportunity is granted to file additional affidavit on these two issues. The petition is restricted to these two grounds.”

***

4. Initially, no affidavit was filed. Ultimately, an affidavit was filed on 27.01.2026.

5. The petitioner is represented by the learned counsel Mr. R. Sanjith. The petitioner retired from the services of the 4, monthly stipend of ₹ 1,500/-. The 6th respondent obtained respondent as Supervisor on 30.11.2014.

6. The brief facts involved in this case are that on 09.05.1991, the 4^th respondent had issued a recruitment notification inviting applications for the post of an Executive Trainee. As per the said notification, the essential qualifications prescribed were a pre-degree along with a Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering Technology from a recognised institution and the candidate was required to be below 21 years of age as on 01.01.1991. In response to the notification, 15 applications were received, out of which, 9 candidates were shortlisted and interviewed, leading to the selection of 5 candidates, including respondents 6 and 7. After the selection, the respondents – candidates would be required to undergo a training programme for two years and after the successful completion of the same, they will be appointed as Assistant Managers on contract basis.

7. Accordingly, the 6th respondent was appointed as Executive Trainee on 25.07.1991 for a period of two years on Diploma in Hotel Management/PGD/Certificate awarded by the National Council for Hotel Management in the year 1992. Respondent No. 4 on 10.08.1993 appointed the 6^th respondent as Assistant Manager on contract basis for a further period of two years from 05.08.1993. On 02.08.1995, the 6^th respondent made a request for absorption into the regular service of the 4^th respondent Corporation. On 29.09.1998, the Government issued an order sanctioning and creating 33 posts of Manager Grade IV under the 4^th respondent Corporation. Thereafter, on 10.10