NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in these 49 writ petitions are ex-hereditary shanbhcgues-village accountants working in various villages of Chickmagalur district, who even after the abolition of hereditary village offices continued to work as Village Accountants by virtue of sub-sec. (2) of S. 16 of the mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964. They are now sought to be replaced by persons selected in the year 1966 under the Mysore General Services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Village Accountants (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 1961. ( 2 ) THERE were at the selection referred to above 330 applicants out of whom 260 persons were called for interview, omitting the rest for the reason either that their applications were defective or the applicants themselves did not possess the minimum qualification required for recruitment. ( 3 ) THE Selection Committee functioning under Rule 11 of the 1961 rules selected 142 applicants as fit for appointment as Village Accountants. The list of selected persons prepared by the Committee was sent to the Divisional Commissioner for his approval under sub-rule (4) of rule 11. The Divisional Commissioner accorded approval on 3-2-1967 and 23-2-1967. ( 4 ) BEFORE the said list was fully exhausted another selection was made in the year 1971. Before however any appointments were sought to be made from out of the persons selected in 1971, the Divisional Commissioner pointed out that the list of persons selected in the year 1966 was still in force by virtue of the proviso to Rule 11 of the Mysore General services (Revenue Subordinate Branch) Village Accountants (Recruitment) rules, 1970 which repealed the previous rules of 1961. Thereafter the appointments impugned in these writ petitions were made resulting in displacement or discontinuance of service of the petitioners. ( 5 ) HENCE these writ petitions. ( 6 ) S. 16 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964 on the language and effect of which the petitioners are placing great reliance reads as follows:" 16. Village Accountant. (1) The Deputy Commissioner may, subject to the general orders of the State Government and the Divisional commr. ( 5 ) HENCE these writ petitions. ( 6 ) S. 16 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, 1964 on the language and effect of which the petitioners are placing great reliance reads as follows:" 16. Village Accountant. (1) The Deputy Commissioner may, subject to the general orders of the State Government and the Divisional commr. , appoint a Village Accountants for a village or group of villages and he shall perform all the duties of a Village Accountant prescribed in or under this Act or in or under any other law for the time being in force, and shall hold office under and be governed by such rules as may be prescribed. (2) Persons holding the office of a Village Accountant for a village or group of villages immediately prior to the commencement of this Act shall be deemed to be Village Accountants for such village or group of villages till another person is appointed under subsection (1 ). " ( 7 ) THE contention of the petitioners, briefly stated, is that they are entitled under sub-sec. (2) of S. 16 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act to continue to function as Village Accountants till another person is appointed under sub-sec. (1), that the appointment of a person under subsec. (1) can only be by the Deputy Commissioner subject to the general orders of the Government which would include the rules for recruitment and that therefore unless a person is appointed by the Deputy Commissioner in due obedience of the rules governing the recruitment, the termination of the petitioner's right to hold the office as Village Accountants cannot be lawfully brought about ft is this right to hold the office, according to the petitioners, which entitles them to question the validity of the appointment of the persons whose posting to their offices has the result of displacing them from the office till then held by them by virtue of sub-section (2) of S. 16 of the Land Revenue Act. ( 8 ) TAKING their stand on the right so claimed, the petitioners state that the selections made in the year 1966 were invalid for the reason that on one of the three days on which the applicants were interviewed by the Selection Committee, the Deputy Commissioner who is the member and Chairman of the Committee was absent, and that therefore the selection cannot be said to be one by a Committee validly constituted under and in accordance with the Rules for recruitment. In support of the last proposition, the! petitioners relied upon an un-reported decision of this court in Anantha Ramaiah v. The Recruitment Committee, WP. 2083 of 1968 rendered on the 11th February 1969. ( 9 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government, detailed particulars are given in respect of the petitioners and vis-a-vis the selections made in the vear 1966. As some of the writ petitions were presented after the filing of the counter-affidavit, particulars of the petitioners in such subsequent writ petitions were gathered from the applications register. The result of the investigation is that the following 30 petitioners had not applied at all for selection. " B. R. Venkatanaranappa and 29 others ". The following 17 were not qualified for being selected either because they did not possess the necessary educational Qualification or because they had crossed the maximum age prescribed for initial recruitment. " S. V. Krishnamurthy and 16 others ". The following two petitioners did not present them selves for interview: " 1. S. Subramanva and H. B. Mahabalaiah ". ( 10 ) ON the question whether the Deputy Commissioner was or was pot prpspnt on the third day of the interview. thp counter-affidavit states that at this distance of it is not possihlp to state anvthine definite about the said matter This however cannot be taken as a firm denial of thp positive assertion made in the affidavits of the petitioners that the deputy Commissioner Was not present on thp third day. We. thp counter-affidavit states that at this distance of it is not possihlp to state anvthine definite about the said matter This however cannot be taken as a firm denial of thp positive assertion made in the affidavits of the petitioners that the deputy Commissioner Was not present on thp third day. We. therefore propped on the footing that as a matter of fact the Dpputv Commissionpr did not attpnd thp interview on thp third day Once that finding is recover dpd the law as declered by this Court in Writ Petition NO 2082 of 1968 already referred to has to be applied It is not possible to split up the matter as suggested in the counter affidavit and limit thp invalidity only to thp cases of persons nsaid to have been interviewed on the third dav becallse intprview is only a step in the process of selection and for complete validity. the entire Committee should participate in all stages of the process ( 11 ) THE questions however is whether the petitioners can in the circumstances of the case and within the framework of the petitions is formplated them successfully questions validity of the appointments of thp respondents in each of the petitions. ( 12 ) THE petitioners have not impleaded all the persons selected at the selection of 1966 nor do they for can they in the absence of all questions the validity of the entire selection. The petitioners in each of these cases has impleaded only one or two persons persons bv whose appointment and pestiong. the petitioners gets displed actually. therefore he has questioned not the selection as such but the title of the particular rpspondent or respondents to take the appointement by virtue of the order of appointment issued in his favour by the Deputy Commissioner. ( 13 ) THERE is next the question whether by reason of the fact that the peitioners have continued to work as deemed Village Accountants by virtue of sub-sec. (2) of S. 16 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, they acquire a right to question the entire process of selection resulting in the appointment of the respondents impleaded in each case which has the consequence of displacing the petitioners. ( 14 ) NOW what sub-sec. (2) of S. 16 of the Mysore Land Revenue Act, they acquire a right to question the entire process of selection resulting in the appointment of the respondents impleaded in each case which has the consequence of displacing the petitioners. ( 14 ) NOW what sub-sec. (2) says is that the Village Accountants who are holding office immediately prior to the commencement of the Act, are deemed to be Village Accountants till another person is appointed under sub-sec. (1 ). When the Deputy Commissioner issues an order of appointment and the appointee proceeds to take charge of the post held by any one of the persons in thp position of the petitioners, such a person cannot question immediately the right of the appointee to take charge of the post, because prima facie he is a person appointed bv the Deputy commissiner in exercise of the power under sub-sec. (1) of S. 16 of the land Revenue Act. The appointment bv the Deputy Commissioner is undoubtedly an official act, and once that is shown to have been done by actually signing and issuing the order of appointment, even a Court has to start with the presumption as to the regularity of the said appointment. It follows therefore a person in the position of the petitioner is bound to vacate office. His right if any to question the title of the appointee to the post by virtue of the appointment can be raised only subsequently. ( 15 ) WHETHER and if so in what circumstances such risht to question the appointment arises must be determined bv the application of considerations of necessity or the evistpnce of personal grievance before jurisdiction under Art. 226 is invoked. To acquire such personal grievance entitling a person to question a selection under Art 226 of the Constitution, the normal rule is that he must have competed at the selection which he questions: because, bv invoking inrisdiction of Article 226 thp petitioner seeks redressal of a personal grievance resulting in a relief being conferrpd upon him. Such a relief in the case of an attack or challenge against the selection made for purposes of appointment could only be in the nature of a further consideration of the petitioner's case along with others with a possibility of the petitioner himself getting selected for appointment. Such a relief in the case of an attack or challenge against the selection made for purposes of appointment could only be in the nature of a further consideration of the petitioner's case along with others with a possibility of the petitioner himself getting selected for appointment. ( 16 ) THE office of a Village Accountant is not a public office in respect of which a writ of quo-warranto pure and simple could have been asked for. Such a writ bv its very name implies that the petitioner who is a mere relator and who does not claim any personal right brings up the question before Court pro bono publico. interested as a member of the public in seeing that a competent person is appointed by competent authrity to a public office. No further questions relating to the process of selection and appointment arise in quo-warranta at the instance of a relator. ( 17 ) WHICHEVER way, therefore, one may look at the matter the claim made by the petitioners of a right to question the selection of the respondent without themselves having participated in the competition resulting in the selection cannot be conceded in their favour. ( 18 ) THIS necessarily results in the reiecton of 30 out of 49 writ petitions as well as two petitions in which the petitioners did not choose to appear before the Interviewing Committee. ( 19 ) WITH regard to the rest of the 17 writ petitions, there is no question about their being even considered for selection as they are totally unqualified for being selected on the ground of lack of educational qualifications or on the ground of their having exceeded the maximum age prescribed for recruitment, ( 20 ) THE result, therefore, is that in majority of the cases, the very claim to contest the selection is without support in law and in the rest of the cases, even a successful challenge will not result in any of the petitioners getting any relief. ( 21 ) APART from this, there are selections made in the year 1971 which according to Mr. Puttaswamy, the learned Government Pleader, have recently been approved by the Divisional Commissioner. ( 21 ) APART from this, there are selections made in the year 1971 which according to Mr. Puttaswamy, the learned Government Pleader, have recently been approved by the Divisional Commissioner. Hence, even if the petitioners succeed in getting rid of the appointees from out of the list of selected persons of the year 1966, they can be removed immediately by the persons selected and placed in the list of selected persons in the yesr 1971 now approved by the Divisional Commissioner. ( 22 ) NO purpose will therefore be served by issuing any writ or direction in any one of the writ petitions. ( 23 ) WE therefore decline to act under Art. 226 of the Constitution and dismiss all these 49 writ petitions. --- *** --- .