Rajagopala Ayyangar, J.-This is a petition for the issue of a writ of quo warranto. questioning the validity of the appointment of Sri P. Arumugha Mudaliar, who has been impleaded as the first respondent, as the Inspector-General of Registration, Madras, by the State Government named as the second respondent.

The ground of attack is based on the allegation, that Article 320(3)(b) of the Constitution has been violated, in that the State Government did not consult the Public Service Commission before making the impugned appointment. Arumugha Mudaliar was an Assistant Secretary to the Government, and by an order, dated 17th March, 1954, the Government of Madras appointed him to the office of the Inspector-General of Registration with effect from 18th April, 1954. The affidavit in support of the petition conceded that under Article 320(3)(b) of the Constitution the Madras Public Service Commission had to be consulted when recruitment was made to the post of Inspector-General of Registration by transfer from the cadre of Deputy Collectors and Assistant Secretaries to Government, though no consultation was necessary when the office was filled up by promotion of a holder of an office of a District Registrar. It was further stated that, when this violation was brought to the notice of the Government by the Madras Public Service Commission, the Government published G.O. 499 on 8th April, 1954, excluding the post from the purview of the Commission with retrospective effect from 1st March, 1954, this G.O. being passed under the proviso to Article 320(3), and in conformity with the terms of sub-clause (5) of that Article. The legality of this retrospective validation was challenged.

In answer to the petition four matters were stated by the respondents namely (1) that the petition for the issue of a writ of quo warranto was not maintainable as. the petitioner had no personal interest in the appointment and therefore had no locus standi to maintain the petition; (2) that consultation with the Public Service Commission was not needed in respect of this appointment; (3) that the provision of Article 220(3) and the obligation laid upon the State Government to consult the Public Service Commission were merely directory in their nature, and that the failure to make the consultation did not invalidate the appointment and (4) that, in any event, the G.O. passed under the proviso to Article 320(3) in conformity with the formalities prescribed by Article 320(5) validated the appointment and the same could no longer be questioned.

We shall first deal with the preliminary objection that has been raised to the maintainability of the petition, based on the petitioner not having a personal interest in the appointment sought to be questioned. We are of the opinion, that, though a writ of quo warranto is not a writ of right, in the sense that the Court is bound to grant the relief prayed for, still if the validity of an appointment or a claim to an office by a person is challenged by an applicant for a writ, and the Court is satisfied that the petition has been filed bona fide, i.e., without improper motives and without delay, it has a right to investigate the matter and decide on the validity of the appointment, notwithstanding that the petitioner is not a rival applicant to that office, and in that sense does not have a personal interest in the issue of a writ. So far as we are aware there is only the decision of a single judge of this Court in Chakkarai Chettair, In re1, supporting the preliminary objection raised by the respondents. In this decision Chandra Reddy, J., held that, where an applicant for the issue of a writ of quo warranto was not able to establish his personal interest in the outcome of the proceeding, he had no right to maintain the petition. This decision has been dissented from subsequently in several decisions of other High Courts, and we are of the opinion that it does not correctly express the law on the point. It is unnecessary for u

Click Here to Read the rest of this document