Thounaojam Surendra Singh vs The Manipur University and Others

Kh. Nobin Singh, J.—Heard Shri M. Rarry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri B.P. Sahu, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Amarjit Naorem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for issuing a writ of quo warranto by declaring the appointment and holding of the post of Lecturer (Hindi) by the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 13-06-2007 as illegal and without any authority of law and also for issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as the Lecturer (Hindi) by holding that the petitioner''s legal right to be appointed, has been illegally usurped by the respondent No. 2.

3.1 According to the petitioner, the Registrar, Manipur University issued an advertisement dated 09-06-2006 inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates fulfilling the qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) for appointment to various posts including three posts of Lecturer (Hindi) and in response thereto, both petitioner and the respondent No. 2 applied for the said posts. Out of the said three posts, one post was reserved for the candidates belonging to OBC category. The interview was held on 19-03-2007 and consequent upon the outcome of the said interview, the respondent No. 2 was offered the said post of Lecturer (Hindi) vide its letter dated 08-05-2007 of the Registrar, Manipur University subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 was appointed as Lecturer (Hindi) vide order dated 13-06-2007 issued by the Registrar, Manipur University pursuant to the resolution passed by the Executive Council, Manipur University.

3.2 On 21-06-2014 the petitioner applied for furnishing the information as regards the identity of the faculty member appointed against the post reserved for the candidates belonging to OBC category and in reply thereto, the Head, Department of Hindi, Manipur University issued a certificate dated 25-06-2014 to the effect that the candidate who was appointed against the post reserved for OBC as per the advertisement dated 09-06-2006 was the respondent No. 2, Dr. Elangbam Vijayalakshmi Devi, Lecturer, Department of Hindi, Manipur University. Being aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on the following inter-alia grounds:--

"a) The appointment of the respondent No. 2 as Lecturer (Hindi) tantamount to breach of provisions contemplated in the OM dated 19-05-1993 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training Establishment (Reservation) Section, Government of India;

b) The respondent No. 2 falls within the criteria of Creamy Layer status, since her father was directly appointed vide order dated 02-09-1959 as Deputy Inspector of Schools (Valley), Manipur which is a Class-I post and was again appointed vide order dated 29-12-1959 as Special Officer, Planning and Statistics which is the higher level of Class-I post;

c) The respondent No. 2 has committed fraud by obtaining a false OBC certificate by colluding with the competent authorities who are empowered to issue OBC certificates;

d) The respondent No. 2 was appointed as Lecturer in the Hindi Department by using the said false OBC certificate and by usurping the legal rights of the petitioner to be appointed against the sole OBC post reserved for the OBC category;

e) The appointment of the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1 is in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of all the rules governing the exclusion of Creamy Layer for grant of OBC certificate;

f) The appointment of the respondent No. 2 as Lecturer (Hindi) being violative of the statutory rules, is without any authority of law;

g) The post of Lecturer in the Department of Hindi is a public office which the respondent No. 2 is holding without any authority of law; and

h) In the event of the respondent No. 2 being not ousted from the pubic office, the illegality will get perpetuated to the detrimental and welfare of the general public."

The present writ petition is contested by the respondent No. 2 by filing affidavit-in-opposition as well as reply affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to question her appointment against the unreserved post. This view of the respondent No. 2 is fortified by the fact that nothing is mentioned in the appointment order about her being appointed against the post reserved for OBC. The writ petition is misconceived as the same being filed after about 7 years and that too, after collusion with Prof. H. Subadani, Head, Department of Hindi who has a grudge against her husband for exposing mass copying in doctoral thesis being indulged by Prof. H. Subadani. Her husband is one of the accused in a complaint being Cril. Complaint Case No. 177 of 2014 filed by Prof. H. Subadani as one of the complainants. The letter dated 21-06-2014 of the petitioner was not addressed to the University but to the Head, Department of Hindi who issued the certificate dated 25-06-2014 in her personal capacity with vindictive motive and to seek vengeance against her and her husband. Prof. H. Subadani is not the appropriate authority to entertain such application which can only be filed under the Right to Information Act to the competent and designated authority of the University. The present petition was filed deliberately in collusion with Prof. H. Subadani with a view to defame her when she became eligible for consideration for being promoted to the next higher post. To probably justify his action, the petitioner got an application under the Right to Information Act sent by speed post on 20-11-2014, bearing a date of 21-06-2014, though his wife and information with reference thereto, was furnished by the Manipur University on 09-12-2014. The respondent No. 2 denied the allegation that her father, Shri E. Yaima Singh was directly appointed as Class-I Officer either as Deputy Inspector of Schools or the Special Officer. According to her, her father was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher, then Headmaster and thereafter, was appointed on promotion as Deputy Inspector of School (Valley) vide order dated 02-09-1959 and her father''s appointment as Special Officer vide order dated 29-12-1959 was temporary in nature. At the time when her father was appointed as Deputy Inspector of Schools, he had not attained the age of forty. As per the ROP''66, a Civil Post carrying a pay scale with a maximum of not less than 500 but less than Rs. 850/-is a Class-II post. Since the respondent No. 2 was alone appointed, she was adjusted against the unreserved vacancy. Irrespective of whether the respondent No. 2 was appointed against the unreserved or against the post reserved for OBC, she was more qualified than the petitioner and therefore, the respondent alone was appointed against the three vacant posts of Lecturer (Hindi). She further denied that she fraudulently procured the OBC certificate and on that basis, she applied for the post of Lecturer (Hindi). Non-inclusion in the appointment dated 13-06-2007 that the appointment of the respondent No. 2 shall be subject to verification in terms of the instructions & regulations prescribed by the Government of India is not because of her fault and it is for the respondent No. 1 to explain it.

In his rejoinder affidavits, the petitioner has admitted that the respondent No. 2 applied as an OBC candidate and that in the appointment order dated 13-06-2007 issued by the Registrar, Manipur University, it is nowhere mentioned that the respondent No. 2 was appointed either against the unreserved or against the post reserved for OBC. According to him, the fact that the respondent No. 2 was appointed against the post reserved for the OBC, is evident from the subsequent advertisements issued by the Manipur University for appointment of Lecturer (Hind), the letter dated 12-11-2014 of the Registrar, Manipur University and the information furnished by the Registrar vide its letter dated 08-12-2014 to the petitioner. As regards the issue whether the father of the respondent No. 2 was appointed as Class-I officer or not, the petitioner has stated that the father of the respondent No. 2 was directly appointed for the first time under the Government of Manipur to the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools for the reason that in the appointment order, the word'' promotion'' is not used at all and in the Extra-Ordinary Gazette Notifications, the words ''is pleased to appoint'' are used. As per the Manipur Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1975, a Civil Post like Joint Director of Education (Planning), Special Officer (Statistics & Planning) and Deputy Inspector of Schools, carrying a pay or scale of pay with a maximum of not less that Rs. 1150/- is classified as Class-I. The pension information slip prepared by the office of the Accountant General, Manipur has shown that the father of the respondent No. 2 became a Class-I Gazetted Officer on 09-02-1960. There is no question of lapse when the fraud committed by the respondent No. 2 was discovered in the year 2014 and the petition was filed on 08-12-2014 to challenge the validity of the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as Lecturer (Hindi). The petitioner has denied that he has knocked the door of this court with a vindictive motive or unclean hand and that there is no any collusion with Prof. H. Subadani. The present petition has nothing to do with the complaint case being filed by Prof. H. Subadani who has been maliciously dragged into the present case although the same is a case of quo warranto.

Before adverting to and considering the rival contentions and in order to enable this court to decide the issues involved herein, it becomes necessary for this court to examine and refer to the principles laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as regards the issuance of a writ of quo warranto. In the case of The University of Mysore and Another Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and Another, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held:

"7. ... Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the inquiry leads to the finding that the holder of the office has no valid title to it, the issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts him from that office. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he may have a right. It would thus be seen that if these proceedings are adopted subject to the conditions recognised in that behalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office; in some cases, persons not entitled to public office may be allowed to occupy them and to continue to hold them as a result of the connivance of the executive or with its active help, and in such cases, if the jurisdiction of the courts to issue writ of quo warranto is properly invoked, the usurper can be ousted and the person entitled to the post allowed to occupy it. It is thus clear that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the Court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not."

In the case of B.R. Kapur Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held:

"80.....The writ of ''quo warranto'' is not a substitute for mandamus or injunction nor for an appeal or writ of error, and is not to be used to prevent an improper exercise of power lawfully possessed, and its purpose is solely to prevent an officer or corporation or persons purporting to act as such from usurping a power which they do not have. State ex inf. McKittrick v. Murphy.

Information in the nature of ''quo warranto'' does not command performance of official functions by any officer to whom it may run, since it is not directed to officer as such, but to person holding office or exercising franchise, and not for purpose of dictating or prescribing official duties, but only to ascertain whether he is rightfully entitled to exercise functions claimed. State ex inf. Walsh v. Thatcher."

In the case of High Court of Gujarat and Another Vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and Others, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held:

"22. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court merely makes a public declaration but will not consider the respective impact of the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari. (See R.K. Jain v. Union of India, SCC para 74.)

A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (See Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commr. & Secy. to Govt. of Haryana.)"

In the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees'' Association and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held:

"49. The law is well settled. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine, at the outset, as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules."

In the case of Hari Bansh Lal Vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto and Others, , the Hon''ble supreme Court held that a writ of quo warranto lies only when appointment is contrary to a statutory provision and for issuance of a writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.

In the case of Centre for PIL and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court held:

"64. Even in R.K. Jain case, this Court observed vide para 73 that judicial review is concerned with whether the incumbent possessed qualifications for the appointment and the manner in which the appointment came to be made or whether the procedure adopted was fair, just and reasonable. We reiterate that the Government is not accountable to the courts for the choice made but the Government is accountable to the courts in respect of the lawfulness/legality of its decisions when impugned under the judicial review jurisdiction. We do not wish to multiply the authorities on this point."

In the case of Central Electricity Supply Utility of Odisha Vs. Dhobei Sahoo and Others, , the Hon''ble Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decisions, has observed that from the aforesaid exposition of law it is clear that the jurisdiction of the High Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is a limited one and can only be issued when the person holding the public office lacks the eligibility criteria or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. The basic purpose of a writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional courts to see that a public office is not held by usurper without any legal authority.

The sum and substance of the contentions of Shri M. Rarry, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 2 is holding the public office without any authority of law and since she has usurped the public office depriving the petitioner of his right to hold it, she ought to be ousted from the said public office by a declaration from this court. The basis of his contention is that the respondent No. 2 has obtained the OBC certificate by fraud knowing fully well that her father being a Class-I officer, he would come within the zone of creamy layer and since she fell within the criteria of creamy layer, she was not entitled to OBC certificate. The appointment of the respondent No. 2 as Lecturer (Hindi) on the basis of the OBC certificate is totalling contrary to the Office Memorandum dated 19-05-1993 issued by the Government of India. He has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Others, wherein the appellant, though belonged to a forward caste, was selected as a direct recruit to the post of Superintendent of Police against a seat reserved for SC on the basis of the caste certificate obtained by him on 14-10-1969 stating that he belonged to "Vettuban" community. By a speaking order dated 18-11-1985, the Scrutiny Committee rejected his claim and on the basis thereof, the appellant was dismissed from service. When the matter came up to the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it held that when it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the SC community, the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eye of the law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved category candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false certificate. Reliance has also been placed in Bank of India and Another Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others, in which the decision in R. Viswanatha Pillai case (supra) was relied upon and the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the respondent No. 1 obtained appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to ST. When the clear finding of the Scrutiny Committee is that he did not belong to ST, the very foundation of his appointment collapses and his appointment is no appointment in the eye of law. There is absolutely no justification for his claim in respect of the post he usurped, as the same was meant for a reserved candidate.

On the other hand, Shri Amarjit Naorem, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submitted that the respondent No. 2 was appointed by the respondent No. 1 in accordance with law. Her OBC certificate was issued by the competent authority and on the basis of it, she was appointed against the seat reserved for OBC. The respondent No. 2''s father was appointed to the post of Deputy Inspector of School or Special Officer, Planning & Statistics in the Department of Education even before he attained the age of forty and since the said posts were not Class-I posts, he did not fall within the zone of exclusion from OBC. Over and above, Shri Amarjit Naorem has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the inter-alia ground that the writ petition was filed in collusion with Prof. H. Subadani who has a personal grudge and enmity with the husband of the respondent No. 2.

The respondent No. 1, Manipur University has not filed any affidavit-in-opposition for the reason best known to it. The only contention that was made by Shri B.P. Sahu, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 during the course of hearing, was that the present writ petition is not maintainable because the District Magistrate in his report dated 11-06-2015 submitted to this court, has categorically stated that the OBC certificate produced by the respondent No. 2 was genuine and she was entitled to it.

Before deciding the main issue, this court proposes to decide the issue as regards the maintainability of the present writ petition raised by Shri Amarjit Naorem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. With regard to the principle of law in this regard, it is well settled that the writ of quo warranto should be refused where it is an outcome of malice or ill-will. In the present case, the petitioner''s counsel submitted that the writ petition was filed in collusion with Prof. H. Subadani who has a personal grudge and enmity with the husband of the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 was appointed as back as on 13-06-2007 and the writ petition was filed after about seven years and that too, after having written a letter dated 21-06-2014 to Prof. H. Subadani who without any authority of law, issued the certificate dated 25-06-2014 to the effect that the respondent No. 2 was appointed against the post reserved for the OBC. The writ petition was filed only after the said complaint having been filed by Prof. H. Subadani against the husband of the respondent No. 2. It is true to the extent that the writ petition was filed after about seven years and also after knowing the fact that the respondent No. 2 was appointed against the post reserved for OBC. But these facts are not sufficient for this court to come to the conclusion that the petition was filed with malafide intention in collusion with Prof. H. Subadani, although the events narrated hereinabove are suspicious. The petitioner was also one of the candidates who applied for appointment as Lecturer (Hindi) and had every right to see whether the appointment had been made in accordance with law or not. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner has any enmity either with the respondent No. 2 or with her husband. The complaint filed by Prof. H. Subadani is against the husband of the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner is nowhere involved in it. Therefore, the present petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability.

The respondent No. 1, the Manipur University was initially established under the Manipur University Act, 1980 and came to be established as a body corporate under the Manipur University Act, 2005, enacted by the Parliament, by the same name "Manipur University". The term "teachers of the University" as defined in Section 2(t) means the Professors, Readers, Lecturers as may be appointed in the University. The term "employee" as defined in Section 2(k) means any person appointed by the University and includes teachers and other staff of the University. Section 23 provides that the Executive Council is the principal executive body of the University. Section 36(1) provides that every employee of the University shall be appointed under a written contract, which shall be lodged with the University and a copy thereof shall be furnished to the employee concerned. As provided under clause 12 of the Statute, the Executive Council is the appointee authority which shall appoint such Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other academic staff, as may be necessary, on the recommendation of the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose. Clause 19 of the Statutes deals with the constitution of Selection Committee for making recommendations to the Executive Council. Clause 19(4) states that the procedure to be followed by the Selection Committee shall be laid down in the ordinances. From the perusal of the various provisions of the Act, it is clear that the detailed rules as regards the appointment of Lecturers, are provided in the Act. It appears that the petitioner has no any grievance in any provisions of the Act for the reason that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said Act, 2005. The competency of the Manipur University to appoint its employees is not under challenge at all.

As has been stated in the preceding para, the Hon''ble Supreme Court, after referring to its earlier decisions and in the case of Central Electricity Supply Utility of Udisha v. Dhobei Chandra Jena & ors. (supra), has observed that the jurisdiction of the High Court while issuing a writ of quo warranto is a limited one and can only be issued when the person holding the public office lacks the eligibility criteria or when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. In the present case, the eligibility criteria is the one contained in the guidelines of the University Grant Commission and according to the respondents No. 2, she applied for appointment after having fulfilled it. The respondent No. 1 found her to be eligible and accordingly, she was called for interview and was later appointed as the Lecturer (Hindi) by the respondent No. 1. Since the petitioner has not raised any question about the eligibility of the respondent No. 2 for being appointed as Lecturer (Hindi), there is no need of this court going into it.

Then, the question that arises for consideration by this court is as to whether the appointment of the respondent No. 2 is in accordance with the statutory rules and is holding a public office. As regards the meaning of term "public office", the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in Srimati Kanta Kathuria Vs. Manak Chand Surana, . In fact, the meaning of the term "public office" was not the subject matter in issue in that case but the meaning of the word "office" was examined in the context of office of profit. The Hon''ble Supreme Court placed reliance in its earlier decision in the Statements case where the Hon''ble Supreme Court approved the observations of Lord Wright in Macmillan case to the effect:

"The word "office'' is of indefinite content. Its various meanings cover four columns of the New English Dictionary, but I take as the most relevant for purpose of this case the following:

A position or place to which certain duties are attached. Especially one of a more or less public character."

Further the Hon''ble Supreme Court agreed to the reliance by the then Hon''ble Mr. Justice Sikri on the observations of Lord Akin to the effect that the word "office" means the office or employment which was a subsisting permanent, substantive position, which had an existence independent from the person who filled it, which went on and was filled in succession by successive holders. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has relied upon the decision in B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Assn. & ors. (supra) wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court, while examining the power and functions of the Board, referred to the term "public office" as defined in Black''s Law Dictionary and held that carrying out sovereign function by the Board and delegation of a portion of sovereign power of the Government to the managing Director of the Board and some permanency and continuity in the appointment are quintessential feature of public office. In the case of University of Mysore & anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao & anr. (supra) wherein the appointment of Shri Annaiah Gowda, appellant No. 2 came to be challenged by the respondent, the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that the judgment of the High Court did not indicate that the attention of the High Court was drawn to the technical nature of the writ of quo warranto which was claimed by the respondent in the present proceedings and the conditions which had to be satisfied before a writ could issue in such proceedings. Accordingly, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the High Court was in error in issuing a writ of quo warranto quashing the appointment of Appellant No. 2. The facts of the present case are slightly identical to that of the University of Mysore & anr. v. C.D. Govinda Rao & anr. (supra) but the Hon''ble Supreme Court had not gone into the question as to whether the post of Reader is a public office or the appellant No. 2 was holding a public office or not. But keeping in mind the various functions of a modern welfare State with its sovereign functions being diluted to some extent and having regard to the fact that the Manipur University was established by an Act of the Parliament, the post of Lecturer (Hindi) being a subsisting permanent, substantive position to be held in succession by successive holders and pay and allowance to be drawn by the holder from the public money, the respondent No. 2 can be said to be holding a public office.

The Manipur University Act, 2005 provides for the details including the manner as to how the appointments of its employees, including the posts of Lecturer (Hindi), are to be made. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1, Manipur University issued an Advertisement No. 3/2006 dated 09-06-2006 inviting applications from amongst the eligible candidates fulfilling the qualifications prescribed by the University Grants Commission for appointment to the posts of Professor, Readers and Lecturers. The post of Lecturer (Hindi) is relevant for the present case and as per the advertisement, there were three vacancies for the post of Lecturer (Hindi), out of which one was reserved for the OBC. Both the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 applied for the said post of Lecturer (Hindi) as OBC candidates on the strength of OBC certificates issued by the competent authority namely the Deputy Commissioner, Imphal West, Government of Manipur. Admittedly, the interview for the appointment to the said post of Lecturer (Hindi) was held on 19-03-2007 and on the basis of the outcome of the said interview, the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 08-05-2007 of the Registrar offered the said post of Lecturer (Hindi) to the respondent No. 2 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Pursuant to and under the resolution of the Executive Council, the respondent No. 2 was appointed as Lecturer (Hindi) in the Department of Hindi of the respondent No. 1, Manipur University. It is thus seen from the above that the respondent No. 1 has, while making the appointment of the respondent No. 2, followed the rules provided in the said Act. It appears that the petitioner being satisfied with the selection process, he has not challenged it before any appropriate forum. Moreover, it is not his contention that the respondent No. 2 has been appointed by the respondent No. 1 contrary to any provisions of the Act, 2005. Therefore, his only contention that the appointment of the respondent No. 2 is contrary to statutory rules because it is based on the OBC certificate being obtained by fraud, cannot be countenanced at all. The OBC certificate produced by the respondent No. 2 is issued by the Deputy Commissioner who is the competent authority. The respondent No. 1 is bound to accept the said OBC certificate as long as it is not declared by any Scrutiny Committee constituted for that purpose or any statutory appellate authority, if any or any competent court of law including civil court as invalid or false. Since any Scrutiny Committee constituted for that purpose or any statutory appellate authority, if any or any competent court of law has not inquired into or decided the issue whether the said OBC certificate is valid or not, it may be required to be inquired into or decided in accordance with rules applicable to it. But the respondent No. 1 is neither an aggrieved person to question the validity of the said OBC certificate nor is it an appellate authority under any provision of law to sit over the decision of the Deputy Commissioner. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the said OBC certificate issued in favour of the respondent No. 2, it is open to him to challenge it before the appropriate forum. There can be no any dispute about the law being laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Others, and Bank of India and Another Vs. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others, (supra) . But since the facts of the said cases are not identical to that of the present case, the principles laid down in the said cases are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said cases, when the Scrutiny Committee found that the certificate was false, the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that the very foundation of appointment on the basis of the said certificate collapsed and the appointment was no appointment in the eye of law. There is no such finding being given by any authority, in the present case, in regard to the OBC certificate produced by the respondent No. 2. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts of the case, this court is of the view that the present petition is not the one in which this court can issue a writ of quo warranto declaring that the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as Lecturer (Hindi) is contrary to statutory rules and that she be ousted from holding the said post of Lecturer (Hindi) and therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

One aspect which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner emphasised during the course of hearing, is that in terms of the OM dated 25-07-2003, the respondent No. 1, before appointing the respondent No. 2 as Lecturer (Hindi), ought to have verified the OBC certificate and also the fact that she did not fall in creamy layer. It appears that the respondent No. 1 has not done that. On 22-04-2015 when the above matter came up for consideration and in order to find out the genuineness of the OBC certificate, this court passed an order dated 22-04-2015 directing the District Magistrate to examine the genuineness of the OBC certificate issued in favour of the respondent No. 2 taking into account the documents produced by the petitioner and submit a report thereof. In compliance with the said order dated 22-04-2015, the District Magistrate submitted his report dated 11-06-2015 to the effect that the respondent No. 2 was entitled to benefits of reservation meant for the OBC and accordingly, an OBC certificate was issued to her. If that be so, the verification may no longer be required and doing so at this stage will be a futile exercise. If the petitioner is of the opinion that such a verification still need to be done, he may approach the respondent No. 1 with a representation so that the respondent No. 1 may act upon it. The failure on the part of the respondent No. 1 to verify the OBC certificate submitted by the respondent No. 2 may be a good ground for challenging the action of the respondent No. 1 in an appropriate proceeding but will not be a ground for issuing a writ of quo warranto. Similar is the case with his contention that while issuing the appointment order dated 13-06-2007, the respondent No. 1 ought to have incorporated therein a rider that the appointment is provisional and is subject to the community certificate being verified through the proper channels and if the verification reveals that the claim of the candidate to belong to OBC or not to belong to creamy layer is false, her services will be terminated forthwith without assigning any further reason and without prejudice to such further action as may be taken under the provisions of India Penal Code for production of false certificate as per OM dated 25-07-2003. Admittedly, such a clause is not included in the appointment order as instructed in the said OM. The omission of such a clause in the appointment order may be a ground for challenging it in an appropriate proceeding but will not be a ground for issuing a writ of quo warranto. A writ of quo warranto will issue only when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made an endeavour to contend that the Office Memoranda issued by the Government are also rules for which he relied upon the decision in Ispat Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has classified the hierarchy of law into four: (i) The Constitution of India; (ii) The Statutory law, which may be either parliamentary or law made by the State Legislature; (iii) Delegated or subordinate legislation, which may be in the form of rules made under the Act, regulations made under the Act, etc.; (iv) Administrative orders or executive instructions without any statutory backing. From the above classification itself, it is evident that statutory rules are different from the executive instructions. It may be noted that the said Office Memoranda issued by the Government of India are only executive instructions and are not statutory rules.

In view of what has been decided above that a writ of quo warranto would not lie in the present case because the appointment of the respondent No. 2 as the Lecturer (Hindi) was not contrary to the statutory rules, there is no need of considering the other prayer made in the writ petition. In a proceeding for issuance of a writ of quo warranto, the only thing that can be scrutinised by the court is whether the appointment is contrary to the statutory provisions/rules and not beyond that. Suitability of a candidate for appointment does not fall within the realm of writ of quo warranto.

In view of the above observations and for the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.