JUDGMENT 1. - These two petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and are based on facts which are quite similar. They have therefore been heard virtually as companion petitions and are being disposed of together at the request of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitions contain a lot of facts and are of considerable amplitude with numerous prayers. The replies are also equally voluminous. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has realised however, that it will be advisable to confine his arguments to the question whether respondents Daulat Ram Chaturvedi and Mohan Lal Bhargava have usurped their present offices and he has confined his arguments to this point. The question for consideration therefore is whether a writ in the nature of quo warranto should be issued against the respondent? In this connection it has also been argued that the Schedule which has been appended to the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Service Rules, 1959, hereinafter called the Rules, should be struck down as invalid. It is therefore not necessary to state those contentions of the parties which do not bear on these two points. In fact a decision on these points can easily be taken on the basis of the admitted facts and it is not necessary to mention the averments of the parties in details. 3. The petitioner is a qualified "vaidya". He was recruited to the service of the former Jaipur State as a Demonstrator in Government Ayurverlic College, Jaipur, on December 1, 1946. He was appointed Vice Principal of the Ruia Ayurvedic College, Ramgarh and then of the Parasrampuria Ayurvedic College, Sikar which were aided institutions. He joined the service of the State of Rajasthan as Professor of the Ayurvedic College at Udaipur on October 19, 1956 and was confirmed with effect from June 12, 1958. Thereafter he was appointed as Physician Specialist Infantile Paralysis at Udaipur on February 19, 1960 and was confirmed on that post by order Annexure 8 dated February 1, 1966. with effect from March 1, 1961, The post of Physician Specialist was not however included in the Schedule appended to the Rules. The petitioner was transferred to the Ayurvedic Research Centre at Jaipur and another person was appointed in his place at Udaipur. Ultimately the petitioner went back to Udaipur as Physician Specialist some time in 1965. 4. with effect from March 1, 1961, The post of Physician Specialist was not however included in the Schedule appended to the Rules. The petitioner was transferred to the Ayurvedic Research Centre at Jaipur and another person was appointed in his place at Udaipur. Ultimately the petitioner went back to Udaipur as Physician Specialist some time in 1965. 4. It so happened that one Jairam Das Swami, Principal Government Avurvedic College, Jaipur, retired from service under an order dated July 12, 1963. Mr. Daulat Ram Chaturvedi (respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 236 of 1969) was then appointed temporarily as Principal in that vacancy for a period of six months or until the finalisation of the promotions whichever was earlier, under order Annexure 15 dated July 12, 1963 even though he was not qualified to hold that post under the Rules. It is the contention of the plaintiff that if an initial mistake had not been committed in not including the post of Physician Specialist in the cadre of posts governed by the Rules, he would have been "entitled" to succeed Mr. Swami as Principal of the Government Ayurvedic College. The petitioner made a representation against the appointment of Mr. Chaturvedi, but to no avail. 5. Another vacancy occurred on the retirement of Mr. Shyam Sunder Sharma, Principal, Ayurvedic College, Udaipur, and the petitioner was promoted to that post on an ad hoc basis under order Annexure 16 dated June 22, 1967, for a period of six months. One S.C. Parashari filed a writ petition challenging the petitioners appointment on the ground that the host of Physician Specialist did not belong to the Raiasthan Ayurvedic Service. In that case the State of Rajasthan took the plea that the question of amending the Rules so as to include the post of Physician Specialist was under active consideration and the concurrence of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission was awaited. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though the Rajasthan Public Service Commission conveyed its concurrence to the proposed amendment, he was reverted to his substantive post of Physician Specialist by order Annexure 18, dated May 5,1968. 6. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that although Mr. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though the Rajasthan Public Service Commission conveyed its concurrence to the proposed amendment, he was reverted to his substantive post of Physician Specialist by order Annexure 18, dated May 5,1968. 6. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that although Mr. Daulat Ram Chaturvedi was not qualified for appointment as Principal of the Government Ayurvedic College at Udaipur, he was allowed to hold that post and was thereafter appointed as officiating Director of the Ayurvedic Department with effect from January 1, 1968, on an ad hoc basis for a period of six months or until the selection of a candidate by the Departmental Promotion Committee whichever was earlier, vice Mr. Prem Shankar Sharma who retired from the afternoon on December 31, 1967. Annexure 25 is a copy of that order dated December 29, 1967, By, the same order, Mr. Mohan Lal Bhargava (respondent No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 380 of 1969), who was working as Professor, Government Ayurvedic College, Jaipur, was appointed as officiating Principal of that College on an ad hoc basis for a period of six months or until the selection of a candidate by the Departmental Promotion Committee, whichever was earlier. It has been contended by the petitioner that both Mr. Chaturvedi and Mr. Bhargava were ineligible for the appointments made by order Annexure 25 so that their appointments are illegal. 7. As the writ petitions are directed against Mr. Daulat Ram Chaturvedi and Mr. Mohanlal Bhargava, it will be proper to state those facts regarding their service which have a bearing on the controversy against them. Mr. Chaturvedi held the post of Deputy Director of the Ayurvedic Department on a substantive basis with effect from February 10, 1960, under order Ex. R.21 11A. As has been stated, he was appointed temporarily as Principal, Government Ayurvedic College, Jaipur, under order Annexure 15 dated July 18, 1963 for a period of six months or until the finalisation of the promotions whichever was earlier. It is not disputed that he has not been confirmed as Principal of the Ayurvedic Collese (at Jaipur or Udaipur) and he has also not been confirmed as Director of the Ayurvedic Department which post he holds on an officiating basis by virtue of order Annexure 25. 8. Several facts have been brought on the record regarding the history of service of Mr. 8. Several facts have been brought on the record regarding the history of service of Mr. Mohan Lal Bhargava. It will be sufficient to say, however, that he was appointed substantively as Professor of the Government Avurvedic College on October 29, 1957 and, as has been stated, he has been appointed official Principal of Government Ayurvedic College, Jaipur, by order Annexure 25 dated December 29, 1967. 9. There is no dispute about these basic facts and I shall therefore proceed to examine the two points of controversy raised by Mr. Agarwal. But before doing so I may deal with a preliminary objection of Mr. M.B.L. Bhargava that the petitions have not been framed properly for the issue of writs of quo warranto and should be dismissed. The learned counsel has tried to support his argument by a reference to Municipal Corporation of Jabalpur v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1963) 2 SCR 135 at pp. 141-42 = ( AIR 1966 SC 837 at p. 840) and Rajendrakumar Chandanmal v. State of M.P., AIR 1957 Madh Pra 60 . 10. A perusal of the record shows however that there is no force in this objection. It has clearly been stated in paragraph 51 of the two writ petitions that, for the facts and circumstances stated by the petitioner, he is entitled to an appropriate writ direction or order striking down as illegal the appointment of Mr. Chaturvedi as Director and of Mr. Bhargava as Principal, made under the aforesaid order Annexure 25 dated December 29, 1967. A consequential prayer to this effect has been made in paragraph 55 of the two petitions. It cannot therefore be said that the petitions are not directed for the grant of writs of quo warranto. Moreover, as has been stated, the basic facts bearing on this relief are not in dispute and are in fact admitted. A consequential prayer to this effect has been made in paragraph 55 of the two petitions. It cannot therefore be said that the petitions are not directed for the grant of writs of quo warranto. Moreover, as has been stated, the basic facts bearing on this relief are not in dispute and are in fact admitted. There is therefore no reason why the request for the issue of the writs should not be considered on the merits-particularly when it cannot be contended, in the facts and circumstances of these cases that the respondents have been taken by surprise or have otherwise been prejudiced in their defence (1963) 2 SCR 135 = ( AIR 1966 SC 837 ) was quite a different case because there a question of fact, or at least a mixed question of law and fact, arose for consideration about which there was no allegation in the petition. This was why the petitioner was not permitted to travel beyond the facts stated in the petition. So also, in Rajendrakumar's case, AIR 1957 Madh Pra 60 the petition did not state certain facts so that the respondent had no opportunity to meet them, and a lest minute attempt to raise new grounds for the first time during the course of the arguments was not permitted. 11. It will thus appear that there is no force in the preliminary objection of Mr. Bhargava and, having put it aside, I shall proceed to examine the merits of the controversy. 12. I may start by making a reference to the Rules on the basis of which the two appointments have been challenged. As has been stated, these Rules are known as the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Service Rules, 1959, and were made by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution for regulating the recruitment to posts in and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Service. The Rules came into force on June 16, 1959 and have undergone several amendments. The two rules which have a direct bearing on the present controversy are Rules 26 and 27. Rule 26 is said to have undergone some amendments but it is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the two rules now provide as follows: "26. The Rules came into force on June 16, 1959 and have undergone several amendments. The two rules which have a direct bearing on the present controversy are Rules 26 and 27. Rule 26 is said to have undergone some amendments but it is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the two rules now provide as follows: "26. Appointment to the service.- Appointments (including in an officiating/temporary capacity) to senior posts shall be made by the Government from amongst members of the Service on the basis of Seniority-cum-merit, en the recommendations of a Committee which shall consist of the following officers: (1) Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission or a Member nominated by him. .....Chairman. (2) Special Secretary to Government in Appointments Department or his nominee not below the rank of a Deputy Secretary. ..Member. (3) Secretary to Government in the Medical Department ......Member (4) Director of Medical and Health Services (Ayurvedic) ...... Member-Secretary. The Committee shall consider the, cases of the persons eligible for promotion by examining their confidential rolls, personal files, interviewing such of them as they deem necessary and select a number of candidates equal to the number of vacancies likely to be filled by promotion: Provided that Government may fill a vacancy in the Senior grade temporarily by appointing thereto for a period of not exceeding six months in an officiating capacity any member of the service who is eligible for such appointment under these rules." 27. Emergent temporary appointments.- A temporary vacancy in the service may be filled by Government by appointing thereto in an officiating capacity an official eligible for promotion to the posts under the provisions of these rules, provided that no such appointment shall be continued beyond a period of six months without referring it to the Commission for their concurrence and shall be terminated immediately on their refusal to concur." It is also admitted that the sources of recruitment to the various posts in the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Service, the qualifications for direct recruitment, the posts from which appointments by promotion are to be made and the minimum experience and qualifications required for promotion are those stated in the Schedule of the Rules. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the Schedule published under notification No. F. 21 (7) Apptts. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the Schedule published under notification No. F. 21 (7) Apptts. (c)/55 dated September 9, 1963, appearing in Rajasthan Rajpatra Part IV-C dated September 16, 1963, as amended by Notification No. F.17(101)NPN/64 dated December 23, 1968, appearing in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated March 20, 1969. is the final Schedule and that it provides as follows: S. No. Name of the post Sources of recruitment with percentage Qualifications for direct recruitment Post from which appointment by promotion is to be made Minimum experience and qualifications required for promotion Remarks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Grade I Director 100% by promotion ... Principals of Ayurvedic College (Jaipur and Udaipur) Five years substantive service as Principal. 2 Grade II principals of Ayurvedic Colleges (Jaipur and Udaipur) " ... Deputy Director, Manager, Pharmacies, Professors in Ayurvedic Colleges. 3 years substantive service as Deputy Director or Manager Pharmacies, or ten years substantive service as Professor. 3 Grade III Deputy Director " ... Professor in Ayurvedic Colleges (Jaipur and Udaipur). .... 4 Grade IV Professor in Ayurvedic Colleges (Jaipur and Udaipur). 50% by selection 50% by promotion. (i) Must hold a degree in Ayurvedic Medicine of University recognised by the Commissioner must hold a diploma in Ayurvedic Medicine granted by the recognised institution after successfully completing a course extending to at least five years; (ii) Must have practised as a registered practitioner in Ayurvedic Medicine or taught in an Ayurvedic College for at least five years after obtaining the degree or diploma required under clause (i). .... .... 13. It has been pointed out by Mr. Agarwal that according to Column 6 of the above Schedule, the minimum experience and qualification required for promotion to the post of Director is five years' substantive service as Principal. Mr. Chaturvedi, it will be recalled, was appointed temporarily as Principal, Government Ayurvedic College, Jaipur, under order Annexure 15 dated July 12, 1969, for a period of six months or until the finalisation of the promotions, whichever was earlier. It is not disputed that he has not been appointed as a substantive Principal so far. It has therefore been argued by Mr. It is not disputed that he has not been appointed as a substantive Principal so far. It has therefore been argued by Mr. Agarwal that he is not qualified to hold the post of Director, and is in fact ineligible for it under Rule 26 as that rule clearly provides that for appointments, including officiating/temporary appointments, the cases of only those persons shall be considered who are "eligible for promotion". The proviso to the rule also lays down that while Government may fill a vacancy in the senior grade temporarily in an officiating capacity, for a period not exceeding six months this would be permissible only if the person so appointed is "eligible for such appointment under these rules". As it is not disputed that Mr. Chaturvedi is not eligible for appointment under Rule 26. Mr. Agarwal has made the argument that his appointment is invalid and that he should be ousted from the office of Director. Learned counsel has argued further that Rule 27 of the Rules deals with the filling of a "temporary vacancy in the service" and that as it is admitted that the post of Director, held by M/s. Chaturvedi under order Annexure 25, fell vacant because of the retirement of Mr. Prem Shankar Sharma, who held it on a substantive basis, it cannot at all be said to be a temporary vacancy so as to fall within the purview of Rule 27.14. Mr. Rastogi has not been able to refute the argument of Mr. Agarwal that Mr. Chaturvedi is not eligible under the Rules for appointment to the post of Director which he is holding at present under order Annexure 25. The facts are too well established to permit of any refutation, so that it cannot be doubted that Mr. Chaturvedi's appointment under challenge is quite invalid.15. Mr. Rastogi has however, argued that even though five years' substantive service as Principal is the minimum experience and qualification required for holding the post of Director, under Rule 26 read with the Schedule, even in an officiating or temporary capacity, officer of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Service fulfilled that requirement at the time when Mr. Prem Shankar Sharma retired as Director, or thereafter, so that the Government found it impossible to make an appointment under Rule 26 or Rule 27 of the Rules. Prem Shankar Sharma retired as Director, or thereafter, so that the Government found it impossible to make an appointment under Rule 26 or Rule 27 of the Rules. He has therefore argued that the impugned appointment should be taken to have been made under Article 162 of the Constitution, in the exercise of the executive power of the State. The learned counsel has supported his argument by a reference to B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore, AIR 1966 SC 1942 and Nandan Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, 1966 Raj LW 262 .16. I am constrained to say however, that although the argument has been presented with ability it remains unattractive. The impugned order (Annexure 25) reads as follows:- "Government of Rajasthan Medical & Pub. Health Department No. P 2(19)MPII/66 Dated Jaipur, the 29th December, 1967 ORDER On the expiry of the period of re employment Shri Prem Shankar Sharma Director of Ayurvedic Department, Ajmer, is relieved from Government Service with effect from the afternoon of 31st December, 1967. Shri Daulat Ram Chaturvedi, Officiating Principal. Government Ayurvedic College. Jaipur, is appointed as Officiating Director of Ayurvedic Department. Ajmer on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till a candidate selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee is available, whichever may be earlier, with effect from 1st January. 1968 (forenoon), vice Shri Prem Shankar Sharma relieved from Government Service. Shri Mohan Lal Bhargava. Professor, Govt. Ayurvedic College, Jaipur, and Incharge Madho Vilas Arogyashala, Jaipur, is appointed as officiating Principal, Govt. Ayurvedic College, Jaipur on ad hoc basis for a period of six months or till a candidate selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee is available whichever may be earlier, with effect from the date of taking over charge vice Shri Daulat Ram Chaturvedi appointed as Director. By Order Sd/ (Raghuraj Singh) Deputy Secretary to the Government."A bare reading of this order will show that the vacancy in the post of Director did not arise all of a sudden. Mr. Prem Shankar Sharma was holding the post on re-employment, so that the Government was all along aware that it would fall vacant on the expiry of the period of re-employment, that is, with effect from the afternoon of December 31, 1967. Mr. Prem Shankar Sharma was holding the post on re-employment, so that the Government was all along aware that it would fall vacant on the expiry of the period of re-employment, that is, with effect from the afternoon of December 31, 1967. So also, the Government must have been aware that there was no one in the Rajasthan Avurvedic Service who could be said to possess the prescribed minimum experience and qualification for appointment to that post tinder Rule 26. Even so it did not think it proper to amend the Rules, and allowed the requirement in regard to the minimum experience and qualification to continue as before. In fact an express direction was given in order Annexure 25 that the appointment of Mr. Chaturvedi was on an ad hoc basis and would last for a period of six months or until the candidate selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee was available, whichever was earlier. Rule 26 provides for the making of all appointments on the recommendation of a committee known generally as the Departmental Promotion Committee, and it is therefore quite clear that the impugned order dated December 26, 1967 was made expressly under the Rules and not otherwise. The wordings of the order are therefore sufficient to refute the argument that the impugned appointment was made under Article 162 of the Constitution. It may be mentioned that the use of the word "ad hoc" has no special significance for it merely shows that the order (Annexure 25) was made with respect to the object of filling the post and was meant to serve that particular requirement.17. The facts of B.N. Nagarajan's case, AIR 1966 SC 1942 were quite different. In that case the matter was examined by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as if there were no service rules at all in respect of the appointments in question. There was therefore no question of any violation of the service rules. Even so, their Lordships took care to observe as follows. In that case the matter was examined by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as if there were no service rules at all in respect of the appointments in question. There was therefore no question of any violation of the service rules. Even so, their Lordships took care to observe as follows. "It is hardly necessary to mention that if there is a statutory rule or an act on the matter, the executive must abide by that Act or rule and it cannot in exercise of the executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution ignore or act contrary to that rule or act." As regards the decision in 1966 Raj LW 262 it will be sufficient to say that, unlike that case, Rules 26 and 27 of the Rules in the present case cannot be said to be silent in regard to the making of temporary appointments, as they definitely provide that only those persons are entitled to such appointments who are eligible for promotion under the Rules. In any case that decision cannot be said to be an authority for the argument of Mr. Rastogi that a person who is ineligible for appointment under his service rules can nonetheless be appointed under the general power of making appointments under Article 162 of the Constitution. If I may say so with utmost respect. Article 310 of the Constitution, on which so much reliance has been placed in Nandan Bhargava's case, 1966 Raj LW 262, deals with the tenure of office of persons serving the Central or a State Government and has nothing to do with the power of appointment. I have therefore taken the liberty of interpreting their Lordships' judgment to mean that they really meant to refer to Article 162 instead.18. There is thus no force in the argument of Mr. Rastogi that the impugned appointment should be upheld with reference to Article 162 of the Constitution.19. I may refer here to an argument of Mr. Shrimal, learned Additional Government Advocate, that since the Rules are silent in regard to the making of an appointment in a situation like the present, when no one was eligible to fill the vacancy under the Rules, it was open to the executive authority to fill up the gap and to supplement the Rules by the issue of executive instructions on the lines of those contained in Annexure 25. The learned counsel has tried to support his argument by a reference to Sant Ram v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910 . I have gone through that judgment, but it appears to have no relevance for the decision of the present controversy. It will be enough to say that the Rules are not silent in regard to the making of the appointment, and it is also quite obvious that order Annexure 25 is not at all consistent with the Rules. I am therefore not persuaded that the decision in Sant Ram's case, AIR 1967 SC 1910 can be said to justify the impugned appointment.20. Now the conditions for the issue of a writ of quo warranto are similar to those for laying an information in the nature of a quo warranto in England. It is thus necessary that (i) the office must be held under the State or have been created by a statute, (ii) it should be an office of a substantive character, (iii) its duties must be of a public nature, and (iv) it should have been usurped by some person. When these requirements are fulfilled, it is in the discretion of the court to refuse or grant the writ after taking into consideration the circumstances of the petition and the consequences which would follow if it is allowed. In other words, it should be in the public interest to grant the writ, as has been held in Dr. P.S. Venkataswamy v. University of Mysore, AIR 1964 Mys 159 , G.D. Karkare v. T.L. Shavde, AIR 1952 Nag 330 , V.D. Deshpande v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 Hyd 36 and AIR 1957 Madh Pra 60 .21. It is not in dispute that the office of Director Ayurvedic Department is being held under the State. It has in fact been created by statute inasmuch as it has the sanction of the Rules; so that the first requirement has clearly been fulfilled.22. It has been urged on behalf of the respondents that the office of Director is not of a substantive character or that, at any rate, it has not been filled by Mr. Chaturvedi on a substantive basis. The argument is quite misconceived. What is an office of a substantive character has lucidly been stated as follows in paragraph 276 of Halsbury's Laws of England, third edition. Volume II at page 147. Chaturvedi on a substantive basis. The argument is quite misconceived. What is an office of a substantive character has lucidly been stated as follows in paragraph 276 of Halsbury's Laws of England, third edition. Volume II at page 147. "An information in the nature of quo warranto lay only if the office was substantive in character, that is, an office independent in title, and if the holder of the office was an independent official not one discharging the functions of a deputy or servant at the will and pleasure of others. An information in the nature of a quo warranto lay in respect of an office held at pleasure, provided the office was one of a public and substantive character." This is in fact amply borne out by a reference to The King v. Speyer, 1916 - 1 KB 595 . So if an office is of at substantive character and is of an independent nature, that will be quite sufficient to attract a petition for the issue of a writ in the nature of quo warranto. In the present case, it is admitted on all hands that the office of Director is of a substantive character and independent nature so much so that it has been created by statute (i.e. the Rules) and has the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. It may be mentioned that no authority has been cited for the position that a writ of quo warranto will not issue if the office in question is not held on a substantive basis. As far as I can see, it should make no difference to the issue of such a writ whether the usurper has assumed charge on a permanent basis or in an officiating or temporary capacity. The second requirement has also therefore been clearly fulfilled in the present case.23. The question then is whether the duties of the office of Director can be said to be of a public nature. On this point also, I have no doubt that if the office imposes obligations of State upon the person appointed to it, it will be an office of a public nature. The question then is whether the duties of the office of Director can be said to be of a public nature. On this point also, I have no doubt that if the office imposes obligations of State upon the person appointed to it, it will be an office of a public nature. And it cannot be doubted that such obligations are inherent in the office of Director of the Ayurvedic Department inasmuch as he is the head of that department of the State Government and discharges numerous functions of that office for the benefit of the public. This requirement has also therefore been fulfilled in the present case.24. So far as the fourth requirement is concerned, I have already, upheld the argument of Mr. Agarwal that respondent Chaturvedi is holding the office of Director in an illegal manner, in breach of the Rules, inasmuch as he is not eligible for the appointment. The learned counsel for the respondents have in fact not been able to urge anything to the contrary, so that it cannot be doubted that Mr. Chaturvedi has usurped the public office in question.25. In this way all the above mentioned requirements for the issue of a writ of quo warranto have been fulfilled. But the issue of the writ is in the discretion of the court and it will not be granted if it is not in the public interest to do so. What is public interest has again been examined in Speyer's case, 1916-1 KB 595 in which it has been held at page 613 that "it is to the public advantage that the law should be declared by judicial authority. I think the Court ought to incline to the assistance, and not to the hindrance, of the applicant in such a case if the Court has the power, which I think it has." In exercising its discretion the court should "take into consideration the consequences which would be likely to follow should the information be granted, and also the circumstances of the application:" Halsbury's Laws of England, third Edition, Volume 11, para 281. In the Instant case, the consequences of the issue of a writ of quo warranto will be to oust the usurper from an important public office of considerable importance by declaring the correct legal position, and there is nothing in the circumstances of the petition to justify its rejection.26. In the Instant case, the consequences of the issue of a writ of quo warranto will be to oust the usurper from an important public office of considerable importance by declaring the correct legal position, and there is nothing in the circumstances of the petition to justify its rejection.26. An argument has however been made that a private person cannot apply for the discharge of the impugned order Annexure 25, by the issue of a writ of quo warranto. Here again, the law has been stated as follows in Speyer's case, 1916-1 KB 595 at p. 613. "In Rex v. Kemp Lord Kenyon , C.J. said 'I do not mean to say that a stranger may not in any case prefer this sort of application; but he ought to come to the Court with a very fair case in his hands,' just as the Court thought it right to inquire into the motives of the applicant to see that the application was not made merely to disturb the local peace of corporations, Rex v. Brown , per Ashhurst, J. It cannot be doubted that this application concerns public government, and there is no ground for impugning the motives of the relation. A stranger to the suit can obtain prohibition (See Broad v. Perkins , and I see no reason why he should not in a proper case obtain an information of quo warranto." Reference may also be made to paragraphs 283 and 284 of Halsbury's Laws of England, third edition, volume 11. In the present case the petitioner is a citizen of the country. What is more, he is actually serving on a high office in the Ayurvedic Department which is now under the control of Mr. Chaturvedi. He has therefore every reason to feel interested in the impugned appointment and his right to maintain the petition cannot be doubted. Reference in this connection may also be made to the following observation in the "Constitutional Law of India" by Seervai, 1967 edition where it has been stated as follows at page 729,- "In several cases it has been held that any member of the public acting good faith, whose conduct did not disentitle him to relief, could apply for a writ of quo warranto without alleging the violation of any specific legal right." 27. I may also refer to the following significant and important observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 . "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.” On the basis of these tests, the present is a fit case for the issue of a writ of quo warranto against Mr. Chaturvedi.28. This leaves for consideration the petition against Mr. Mohan Lal Bhargava. As has been stated, it is not disputed that he was appointed substantively to the post of Professor in Ayurvedic Colleges (Jaipur/Udaipur) on October 29, 1957. It is also not disputed that he was appointed as officiating Principal under order Annexure 25 on December 29, 1967 with effect from January 1, 1968. He was therefore clearly eligible for the appointment as he had put in 10 years' substantive service as Professor on the date of his appointment. His appointment must therefore be held to be valid under Rule 26 of the Rules and this, by itself, is sufficient to foreclose any argument to the contrary.29. He was therefore clearly eligible for the appointment as he had put in 10 years' substantive service as Professor on the date of his appointment. His appointment must therefore be held to be valid under Rule 26 of the Rules and this, by itself, is sufficient to foreclose any argument to the contrary.29. The only other point for consideration is that relating to the validity of the Schedule appended to the Rules. Mr. Agarwal tried, at one stage, to make an argument that the amendment which was made in the Schedule in 1963 by substituting the word ..or" for the word "and" in column 6 of the entry against serial number 2 was not made by the Governor in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. I had no hesitation in rejecting the argument because a perusal of notification No. P. 17(101)NPH/64 dated December 23, 1968 appearing in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated March 20, 1969, left no room for doubt that the amendment was made by the Governor in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution so that it is quite a valid amendment.30. It has however been argued that the Schedule is not quite accurate inasmuch as it does not correspondent to some provisions of the Rules. It has thus been pointed out that even though the Schedule provides that the Manager Pharmacies will be eligible for promotion as Principal of an Ayurvedic College, it does not make a mention of the post of Manager Pharmacies in Column 2. So also, my attention has been invited to that portion of the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rule, 1969, in which the post of Physician Specialist has been mentioned as a post belonging to the Rajasthan Ayurvedic Service and it has been stated that it shall be deemed to be encadred in that service. I am not persuaded, however, that this argument requires any serious consideration. It may be that the Schedule is not quite accurate and may require some changes, but it cannot be said that the post of Physician Specialist must be deemed to be included in it merely by reason of the aforesaid entry in the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969. It may be that the Schedule is not quite accurate and may require some changes, but it cannot be said that the post of Physician Specialist must be deemed to be included in it merely by reason of the aforesaid entry in the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969. The post of Physician Specialist is to be "deemed" to be encadred in the Rajasthan Avurvedic Service only for purposes of those rules, and there is no justification for the argument that it must necessarily be incorporated in the Schedule to the Rules. The Schedule is no doubt defective, but the defect can be brought to the notice of the rule-making authority for correction. No defect has been pointed out in respect of the other entries in the Schedule, and I am unable to think that there is any justification for the argument that it should be struck down as invalid.31. In the result, writ petition No. 286 of 1969 is allowed to the extent that the appointment of Mr. Daulat Ram Chaturvedi (respondent No. 2) made under order Annexure 25 is declared to be invalid and he is ousted from the office of Director of the Ayurvedic Department. Writ Petition No. 390 of 1969 is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs, except that respondent Mohan Lal Bhargava will be entitled to his costs from the petitioner.Order accordingly. *******