Ratio
When the appointment of a person was contrary to the statutory regulations, it could be challenged by anyone by seeking quo warranto.

1. The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition, seeking the issue of a Writ of Quo Warranto to direct the third respondent to show cause on what authority he holds the post of Principal of Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College, Chennai.

2. I have heard Mr.K.Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.N.Srinivasan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2, Mr. D.Gnanasekaran, learned counsel for the third respondent, Mr.V.M.G.Ramakkannan, learned counsel for the fourth respondent, Mr.S.R.Rajagopal, learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 and Mr.P.R.Gopinathan, learned counsel for the seventh respondent.

3. The third respondent was appointed temporarily as a Junior Professor in Sociology, on 17.1.1985 in the Government Law College, Chennai. The appointment was ratified by the Government on 22.1.1985. Later adhoc rules were framed for the post of Junior Professor in Non-Law subject, as per which a degree in M.L., with 50% marks and enrolment as an Advocate was made compulsory. The third respondent challenged the said rule in W.P.No.192 of 1987 unsuccessfully. His writ appeal was also dismissed.

4. Therefore, the Government, by order dated 16.12.1988, directed the regularisation of the services of the third respondent in the category of Assistant Professor in Tamil Nadu Collegiate Education Services (not in the Tamil Nadu Legal Education Service). Thereafter, the third respondent acquired a B.L., Degree from the Madurai Law College (Evening College). Subsequently, a Saving Clause was introduced to the adhoc rules by an amendment issued on 5.3.1993. Based upon the Saving Clause, the services of the third respondent and similarly placed persons, were regularised in the Tamil Nadu Legal Education Service.

5. In 1995, the third respondent acquired M.L., Degree from Annamalai University through Correspondence Course. In the year 2008, the Bar Council of India issued Rules of Legal Education, stipulating that the Principal of a Law College should be a Professor of Law as per UGC stipulation. However, the Government amended the adhoc rules on 12.3.2010, making Lecturers in Law and Non-Law subjects, both eligible for promotion to the post of Principal. Based upon the said amendment and also based upon the common seniority list issued on 17.6.2011, the third respondent was appointed as the Principal of the Dr.Ambedkar Government Law College. Challenging the said appointment, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit, which confirms the following facts:-

(i) that he was appointed through Employment Exchange to the post of Assistant Professor in Government Law College to teach Non-Law subject viz., Sociology, with effect from 17.1.1985;

(ii) that though the adhoc rules issued under G.O.Ms.No.1349, Education Department, dated 19.11.1985, prescribed the qualifications of M.A., with not less than 50% marks, M.L., with not less than 50% marks and enrolment in the Bar Council, as qualifications for the post of Junior Professor to teach Non-Law subjects, the services of the petitioner were regularised under G.O.Ms.No.307, Law Department, dated 6.8.1993, in view of the Saving Clause introduced to the adhoc rules under G.O.Ms.No.67, Law Department, dated 5.3.1993;

(iii) that the petitioner studied B.L., in the Evening College in Government Law College, Madurai and acquired the degree in 1990;

(iv) that he pursued M.L., Degree Course in Annamalai University through Correspondence and acquired the Degree in 1995 with 55% marks;

(v) that thereafter, he also taught Law subjects and evaluated answer papers on Law subjects;

(vi) that as per G.O.Ms.No.66, Law Department, dated 12.3.2010, experience in teaching Law subjects is not included as one of the qualifications for promotion to the post of Principal; and

(vii) that since the third respondent also has experience in teaching Law subjects and he is also due to retire on 30.6.2012, the question of se