Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding the issuance of a writ of quo warranto are as follows:

1. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when an appointment is made contrary to statutory rules or provisions, which have the force of law. It cannot be issued based solely on administrative instructions or non-statutory guidelines (!) (!) .

2. The office in question must be a public office, created by statute or the Constitution, and of substantive and independent character. The person holding such office must have claimed or asserted their right to it, and must be legally qualified to hold it (!) (!) .

3. The scope of quo warranto is limited to determining whether the appointment was made in accordance with law. If the appointment was based on administrative instructions without statutory backing, a writ of quo warranto is not maintainable (!) .

4. The office must have duties of a public nature and be created by law. If the post is not of a public nature or not created by statute, the remedy of quo warranto is not applicable (!) .

5. The issuance of a writ of quo warranto is a discretionary remedy. It is primarily intended to prevent usurpation or illegal continuation in office, and not to interfere with lawful exercises of power or technical delays (!) (!) .

6. The court's inquiry focuses on whether the appointment contravenes any statutory or legal provisions. If it is made solely on administrative instructions, which lack the force of law, the court will generally refuse to issue a quo warranto (!) .

7. Delay or lack of personal interest (locus standi) does not bar a citizen from challenging an appointment through quo warranto, provided the appointment is unlawful and the office is of a public nature (!) (!) .

8. In the absence of statutory rules or legal provisions requiring a particular procedure for appointment, and if the post is filled based on administrative instructions, a writ of quo warranto is not appropriate (!) (!) .

9. The court emphasized that the appointment must be made in violation of binding legal rules or provisions for a quo warranto to be issued. Administrative instructions, which are not legally binding, do not meet this criterion (!) .

10. Overall, the legal principles underscore that quo warranto is a remedy to address unlawful usurpation of a public office created by law, and not a tool to challenge appointments made solely through administrative or executive instructions without statutory backing (!) (!) .

These points collectively clarify that in cases where appointments are made based solely on administrative instructions and there are no statutory rules governing the appointment process, a writ of quo warranto is not a legally sustainable remedy.