( 1. ) THE petitioner No. 1 is a practicing Advocate and practices mainly in co-operative matters. He is also the Vice President of the Bar Association of m. P. State Co-operative Tribunal. The petitioner No. 2 is active in the co-operative movement in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners have filed this writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation challenging the appointment of respondent No. 2 as Chairman of the M. P. State Co-operative tribunal (for short the Tribunal) and have prayed for a writ of quo warranto for removal of the respondent No. 2 from the post of Chairman of the Tribunal.

( 2. ) THE ground for challenge to the appointment of the respondent no. 2 as Chairman of the Tribunal is that under Section 77 (3) (a) of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short the Co-operative Act), a person who has been a Judge of the High Court or has held the office of District Judge for not less than five years is qualified to be appointed as Chairman of the tribunal, but the respondent No. 2 was not a Judge of the High Court and has also not held the office of the District Judge for five years.

( 3. ) IN the return filed by the respondent No. 2, a preliminary objection has been taken that there is no element of public interest in the writ petition and the petitioners have filed the writ petition only because the respondent No. 2 has decided a revision petition and a review petition against the petitioners.

The respondent No. 2 has further stated that he was promoted as officiating District judge in the Higher Judicial Service of the State by order dated 14-5-1987 and thereafter was sent on deputation as Deputy Secretary, Department of Law and legislative by order dated 9-11-1990, was Additional Judge to the Court of district Judge, Dewas from 12-5-1994, he was sent on deputation as Additional welfare Commissioner, Bhopal Gas Victim from 15-3-1995, he was transferred as District and Sessions Judge, Bhind by order dated 22-4-1996 where he joined on 13-5-1996, he was posted on deputation as Registrar, High Court by order dated 10-5-1999, then as Registrar (Vigilance) by order dated 28-11-2001 and as registrar General of the High Court by order dated 28-3-2002. He was granted extension for a period of six months on the post of Registrar General, High court with effect from 1-7- 2003 and continued on extension till 30-6-2005. The case of the respondent No. 2 is that he has worked on the post of District Judge, additional District Judge and other deputation posts equivalent to the post of district Judge and Additional District Judge since 1987.

( 4. ) AT the hearing, Mr. Ankit Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in the year 1976, a provision was made in sub-section (3) (a) of Section 77 of the Co-operative Act providing that a person who has held the office of District Judge for not less than five years would be qualified for appointment to the post of Chairman of the Tribunal. He submitted that the court of District Judge and the Court of Additional District Judge had been classified as two different Courts in the M. P. Civil Courts Act, 1958 (for short the Civil Courts Act ). He submitted that the amendments introduced in the civil Courts Act after 1976 cannot be considered by the Court while interpreting the provisions of Section 77 (3) (a) of the Co-operative Act made in the year 1976. He further submitted that in Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and others Vs. State of U. P. and others, (1991) 1 SCC 212, the Supreme Court has held that the word office means the right and duty to exercise an employment or a position of authority and trust to which certain duties are attached. He argued that the expression office of a District Judge used in Section 77 (3) (a) of the co-operative Act has to be interpreted in the light of such meaning given to the word office and only those who have the right and duty to exercise the powers of District Judge can be said to be holding the office of District Ju