JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

1. Heard Sri. I.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri. Kaushlendra Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents, Sri. Sanjay Bhasin, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri. Kshitij Misra, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 and Sri. Gyanendra Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4.

2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ in the nature of quo-warranto thereby ousting respondent no. 3-Amit Agarwal from the post of Chief Medical Superintendent, Sanjay Gandhi Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli Road, Lucknow.

3. The writ petition has been filed with the allegation that respondent no. 3 has usurped the Public Office of Chief Medical Superintendent and is not qualified to hold the said post.

4. Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate, has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition by placing reliance on the Sanjay Gandhi Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, First Regulation, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2011 Regulations’) to contend that the post of Chief Medical Superintendent in Sanjay Gandhi Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the SGPGIMS) is not a Public Office. It has been further argued that in order to maintain a writ of quo-warranto, the petitioner has to substantiate that the office is a Public Office and the person against whom the writ of quo-warranto is sought is a usurper holding the Public Office without any legal authority.

5. The entire aspect of the matter pertaining to what is a Public Office has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Neetu Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others passed in Writ Petition No. 24229 (MB) of 2019 decided on 05.09.2019 wherein considering almost the entire law on the subject, the Division Bench has held as under:-

“8.1 In case of Dr. P.S. Venkata Swamy Setty vs. University of Mysore, AIR 1964 Mysore 159, it has been held that the Professors and Readers of a University do not exercise any governmental function nor they are vested with the power or charged with the duty of acting in execution or enforcement of law. They are merely employees of the Statutory Body. They cannot therefore in any sense be described as holders of Public Offices in respect of which a Writ of Quo-warranto would lie.

8.2 In Dr. P.S. Venkata Swamy Setty (Supra), the University of Mysore though its Registrar, vide Notification dated 25th June,1959 invited Applications for various posts of Professors and Readers in different subjects. The Petitioner therein was one of the Applicants for the post of Reader in Physics. Several candidates were interviewed but none was selected and therefore, One Post of Professor and Three Posts of Reader in Physics were re-advertised and consequently the Private Respondents were selected. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition praying for a Writ of Mandamus or Writ of Quo-Warranto against the Private Respondents primarily on the ground that the appointments are invalid or unauthorized because qualifications set out in Second Notification were not shown to have been prescribed by Syndicate of the University and some of the Respondents did not possess the minimum qualifications. Specific objection was raised with regard to maintainability of a Writ of Quo-warranto and after considering various judicial pronouncements, the Mysore High Court has held as under in Paragraph 11, 13 and 14:

"PARA 11

The peculiar characteristics of the writ of quo-warranto and the history of its development in England are found discussed in the leading case of The King vs. Speyer, (1916) 1 KB 595. Lord Reading C.L. points out that originally a writ of quo-warranto was available only for use by the King against encroachment of royal prerogative or of rights, franchise or liberties of the Crown but that later it gave place to the practice of filing information by