JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - Dr. (Smt) Shyamo Devi Khanna filed writ petition No. 631 of 1974 against the State of U.P. and others claiming, inter alia, that by a writ or order in the nature of quo warranto the opposite party, No. 3 namely Dr. A.C. Saxena be commanded to show the authority under which he is holding the post of Principal as well as Deputy Director (Homeopathy). Writs in the nature of mandamus and prohibition were also claimed by her. Writ Petition No. 3091 of 1975 was filed by Dr, Prahlad Kumar against the State of U.P. and others claiming that a writ of quo warranto be issued directing respondent No. 3 Dr. A.C. Saxena to show by what authority he is holding the office of Deputy Director (Homeopathy) U.P. Lucknow. Other writs in the nature of mandamus and certiorari were also claimed by him. These two writ petitions were decided by a learned single Judge of this Court by a common judgment dated 8-4-1976 whereby the writ petitions were allowed. The opposite party Dr. A.C. Saxena was ousted from the office of Deputy Director (Homeopathy) and from the office of Principal, National Homeo pathic College, Lucknow and these offices were declared vacant. Dr. G. S. Chaudhry and Dr. J. Chandra were also ousted from their offices and the posts of professors were declared vacant. These four Special Appeals 18 of 1976, 19 of 1976, 22 of 1976 and 23 of 1976 are directed against that decision of the learned single Judge. Special Appeal No. 18 of 1976 has been filed by Dr. A.C. Saxena and others against Dr. Prahl ad Kumar and others, whereas Special Appeal No. 22 of 1976 has been filed by the State of U.P. and Director Medical and Health Services, U.P. Lucknow against Dr. Prahlad Kumar and others. Both these special appeals arise out of Writ Petition No. 3091 of 1975. Dr. A.C. Saxena has filed Special Appeal No. 19 of 1976 against Dr. (Smt.) Shyamo Devi Khanna and others. Similarly the State of U.P. and two others have filed Special Appeal No. 23 of 1976 against Dr. (Smt.) Shyamo Devi Khanna and others. Both these two Special Appeals arise out of Writ Petition No. 631 of 1974. Since in all these special appeals common question of law and facts arise they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. (Smt.) Shyamo Devi Khanna and others. Both these two Special Appeals arise out of Writ Petition No. 631 of 1974. Since in all these special appeals common question of law and facts arise they are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. The matter relates to the appointment of Dr. A.C. Saxena as Deputy Director (Homeopathy) as also to his holding the charge of the post of Principal, National Homoeopathic College, Lucknow. On 3-1-1972 an advertisement was published in the news paper inviting applications from citizens of India for one temporary post of Deputy Director (Homeopathy) at Swasthya Sewa Nideshalaya, U.P. Lucknow. A Selection Committee was appointed by the Government to select suitable candidates for the said posts. The Selection Committee considered the applications of the applicants and recommended three candidates in order of merit. namely, Dr. J.C. Sharma, Dr. A.C. Saxena and Dr. M.S. Pramnik. A copy of the recommendation of the Selection Committee is Annexure 10 to Writ Petition No. 3091 of 1975. The Selection Committee made its observations with regard to the said three candidates and sent its recommendation along with the applications of ten candidates as well as the comparative chart to the Government. Thereafter the Government of U.P. appointed Dr. A.C. Saxena on the temporary post of Deputy Director (Homeopathy) on ad hoc basis up to 28-2-1973 or till a suitable candidate as recommended by the Public Service Commission was available, whichever was earlier. A copy of the order of appointment is Annexure 11 to the said writ petition. It was also mentioned in that order that the post was sanctioned till 28-2-1973 and the appointment was liable to be terminated by either party by giving a notice of one month. Dr. A.C. Saxena took over charge on ad hoc basis as Deputy Director (Homeopathy) on 26-6-72 till a regular appointment was made. It seems that the post was continued from year to year after the expiry of 28-2-1973 and Dr. A.C. Saxena still holds that post on ad hoc basis. 3. On 2-8-1975 an advertisement was published in the National Herald inviting applications for the post of Denuty Director of Homeopathic Medicines but no appointment has so far been made on a permanent basis. 4. With regard to the post of Principal an advertisement was published on 4-10-1972 inviting applications for the same. Dr. A.C. Saxena did not apply but Dr. On 2-8-1975 an advertisement was published in the National Herald inviting applications for the post of Denuty Director of Homeopathic Medicines but no appointment has so far been made on a permanent basis. 4. With regard to the post of Principal an advertisement was published on 4-10-1972 inviting applications for the same. Dr. A.C. Saxena did not apply but Dr. (Smt.) Shyamo Devi Khanna and a few others did apply for that post. The candidates were interviewed by the Public Service Commission on 12-3-1973 but none was found suitable. Thereafter another ad vertisement was published on 16-6-1973 inviting application for the said post. This time Dr. A.C. Saxena also annelid. A stay order was passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 631 of 1974 on 13-6-1974 Dr. A.C. Saxena was meanwhile directed by the Government to look after the work of Principal of the aforesaid College in addition to his own duty as Deputy Director. 5. A writ of quo warranto has been claimed against Dr. A.C. Saxena to show under what authority he is holding the office of Deputy Director (Homeopathy) as also the post of Principal of the said College. The petitioners in the said writ petitions contended that as Dr. A.C. Saxena did not possess all the essential qualifications required for the said post of Deputy Director and his appointment to that post was contrary to law; hence he was an usurper and therefore he should be ousted from that post. The learned single Judge accepting the contention of the petitioners that Dr. A.C. Saxena did not possess the essential qualification required for the said post held that his appointment was illegal and passed the impugned order dated 8-4-1976. The State of U. P and Dr. A.C. Saxena being aggrieved by the said order have preferred these Special Appeals. 6. For the appellants it was urged that the posts of Deputy Director and Principal, National Homeopathic College, Lucknow are not public offices, but are mere employments and even if it was assumed that they were public offices, there was no violation of any statutory rule in the appointment of Dr. A.C. Saxena to the post of Deputy Director (Homeopathy), or in the order of the Government making Dr. A.C. Saxena to look after the work of Principal in addition to his own duty. A.C. Saxena to the post of Deputy Director (Homeopathy), or in the order of the Government making Dr. A.C. Saxena to look after the work of Principal in addition to his own duty. Further, it was urged that the alleged offices of Deputy Director and Principal were not of substantive character and the appointment of Dr. A.C. Saxena on the post of Deputy Director was merely on an ad hoc hasis and that he was asked to look after the work of Principal of the said College merely as a stop gap arrangement, hence no writ of quo warranto should have been issued. On the merits of the case it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that Dr. A.C. Saxena possessed the essential qualifications. Similarly Dr. J. Chandra and Dr. G. S. Chaudhry are also alleged to possess the requisite essential qualifications for the appointment to the post of Professor in the said College, and the findings of the learned single Judge to the contrary were erroneous. 7. The petitioners in both the writ petitions had claimed writ of quo wsrranto which is a writ of technical nature and may be issued only if certain conditions are satisfied. Quo warranto is a judicial remedy against an occupier or usurper of a substantive public office or franchise. The usurper is in effect asked by what authority (quo warranto) he is in such office or franchise. If the answer is not satisfactory and he is found to be an usurper of the public office he may be ordered to be ousted. For quo warranto to be invoked the office must, therefore, be a public office of substantive nature and the appointment to such office of the person concerned must have been in violation of some statutory rule governing the appointment. Quo warranto is addressed to prevent a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. In Darley v. The Queen (1846) 8 ER 1513 (1521, 1522), which was held in R. v. St. Quo warranto is addressed to prevent a continued exercise of authority unlawfully asserted. In Darley v. The Queen (1846) 8 ER 1513 (1521, 1522), which was held in R. v. St. Martins Guardian (1851) 17 Q.B 149 to be the turning point in the law, Tindal C.J. observed: "After consideration of all the cases and dicta on this subject, the result appears to be that this proceeding by information in the nature of quo warranto will lie for usurping any office, whether created by charter alone, or by the Crown with the consent of Parliament, provided the office be of a public nature and a substantive office, not merely the function or employment of deputy or servant held at the will and pleasure of others." This dictum was referred to with approval by Lord Reading in Rex v. Speyer (1916) 1 KB 595 and he laid down the test as to whether there has been usurpation of an office of a public nature and an office substantive in character, that is an office independent in title. Before a writ in the nature of quo warranto can be claimed the Court has to be satisfied that the office in question is public office and is held by an usurper without legal authority which would necessarily involve an inquiry as to whether his appointment has been made in accordance with law. 8. The principle is stated in Halsbury's Laws of England Third Edition, Volume 11 at page 145 in the following terms :- "An information in the nature of quo warranto took the place of the obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay against a person who claimed or usurped an office, franchise, or liberty to inquire by what authority he supported his claim in order that the right to the office or franchise might be determined". Quo warranto or an action or proceeding in the nature thereof is a proper and appropriate remedy to test, try and determine the right or title to a public office regardless of the value of the office, Conversely in order to justify the employment of a quo warranto proceeding to try title to an office there must be involved not only an office as distinguished from a mere position or employment held at the will of the officer or body having the power of appointment but also a public office or an office of a public nature. The proceedings in quo warranto are available to test the right or title to office only where the office is a public one and the respondent is eligible to the office to which he is appointed or elected. A proceeding by quo warranto will not lie where the office is vacant or against one who merely lays claim to the office but has never been admitted thereto. The position of a person who has a right to claim an office but has not assumed it is in no sense of an usurper. However, a person actually obtaining office with the legal indicia of title is legally in possession thereof and is a legal officer until ousted. Such an incumbent is an officer de facto, if not de jure, that is, one who is in possession and discharging the duties thereof under colour of authority. By `colour of authority' is meant authority derived from an election or appointment however irregular or informal, so that the incumbent is not a mere volunteer, (See American Jurisprudence 2d, Volume 65 page 246). 9. Examining the technical nature of the writ of quo warranto the Supreme Court in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao ( AIR 1965 SC 491 ) laid down (at p. 494):- "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. 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 others 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 officers 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 condition recognised in that behalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers of public officer; 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 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". The three conditions which must, therefore, be satisfied before a writ of quo warranto may be issued are : (i) The office in question is a public office (ii) It is an office substantive in character, that is, an office independent in title, and (iii) The public office is held by usurper without legal authority which necessarily leads to the inquiry as to whether his appointment has been made in accordance with law or not; in other words, whether the appointment has been made in violation of some statutory provisions of law. What is an office of public nature? It was observed in Rex v. St Martin's Guardain (supra) that it would cover any office, in which the public have an interest. `Public office,' therefore, implies a delegation of a sovereign power. An office is often distinct from employment. What is an office of public nature? It was observed in Rex v. St Martin's Guardain (supra) that it would cover any office, in which the public have an interest. `Public office,' therefore, implies a delegation of a sovereign power. An office is often distinct from employment. In Dale v. Inland Revenue Commr., (1954) AC 11 at 26 Lord Normand pointed out that `office' is an apt word to describe a trustee's position, or any position, in which services are due by the holder and in which the holder has no employer. Another ingredient of `office' was indicated by Rowlatt J., in Great Western Rly Co. v. Bater (1920) 3KB 266 as - "An office or employment which was a subsisting permanent substantive position which had an existence independent of the person who filled it, which went on and was filled in succession by holders. There can be no doubt that the Director of a company holds such an office as is described." An office may be one of profit or it may be honorary, (See Dr. Deorao v. Keshav Laxman Borker ( AIR 1958 Bom 314 ). A person may come to occupy an office either by appointment or by election. He may be an employee of a corporation or may be merely the holder of an office of the corporation and not its employee. If it is shown that the Government has power to dismiss, the power to appoint. The power to control and give directions as to the manner in which the duties of the office are to be performed and the power to determine the question of remuneration it will be an employment under the Government. It has been held in State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra ( AIR 1967 SC 884 ) that a post under the State is an Office or a position to which duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached, an office or a position to which a person is appointed and which may exist apart from and independently of the holder of the post.' 10. An office substantive in character means an office independent in title, (See Rex v. Speyer (1916-1 KB 595) (supra). An office substantive in character means an office independent in title, (See Rex v. Speyer (1916-1 KB 595) (supra). In that case Lord Reading observed: "I have found it difficult to understand why in principle an office held at pleasure should not equally, with an office of a permanent character, be the subject of this remedy, provided the office be of a public and substantive character, particularly as an office held at pleasure, is often in effect of a permanent character. After considering the authorities since Darley v. Queen (1846-8 ER 1513) it appears to me that they rest upon the principle formulated in that case and are only the application of it to the particular facts. Tindal C.J. when using the language under consideration was contrasting the substantive office that is, the office of an independent character, with the employment of a deputy or mere servant." The third ingredient is that the appointment should be shown to have been made in violation of statutory rules relating thereto. Conversely if the appointment has been made in disregard of some executive instruction not having the force of law, no writ of quo warranto shall issue. Non-observance of administrative instructions does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ of quo warranto on the ground that the appointment had been made in violation of those administrative in structions. Art. 162 of the Constitution indicates the scope of the executive power of the State. Under that power the State can give administrative instructions to its servants but such instructions cannot be deemed to be statutory rules unless it is shown that they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the State Government by some statute or under some provision of the Constitution providing therefor. (See G. J. Fernandez v. State of Mysore ( AIR 1967 SC 1753 ). 11. Examining the scope of Art. 162 of the Constitution the Supreme Court observed (at p. 1757) : "But as we have already indicated, Art. 162 does not confer any authority on the State Government to issue statutory rules. It only provides for the extent and scope of the executive power of the State Government, and that coincides with the legislative power of the State Legislature. It only provides for the extent and scope of the executive power of the State Government, and that coincides with the legislative power of the State Legislature. Thus under Art. 162 the State Government can take executive action in all matters in which the Legislature of the State can pass laws, But Art. 162 by itself does not confer any rule making power on the State Government in that behalf. We are therefore, of opinion that instructions contained in the Cede are mere administrative instructions and are not statutory rules. Therefore even if there has been of such executive instructions that does not confer any right on the appellant to apply to the court for quashing orders in breach of such instructions. It is unnecessary for us to decide whether there has been in fact a breach of any instruction contained in the Code with respect to tenders and we do not therefore, so decide. But assuming that there has been any breach that is a matter between the State Government and its servant, and the State Government may take disciplinary action against the servant concerned who disobeyed these instructions. But such disobedience did not confer any right on a person like the appellant, to come to court for any relief based on the breach of these instructions, it is for this reason that we are not referring to the Code, though the High Court did consider whether there was any breach of these administrative instructions and came to the conclusion that there was no breach. In the view we take it is unnecessary for us to consider this, for we are of opinion that no claim for any relief before a court of law can be founded by a member of the public, like the appellant, on the breach of mere administrative instructions." 12. It is well settled that the proceeding of quo warranto may be initiated by any citizen even if he is not aggrieved person. In Speyer's case (supra) it was pointed out that an information in the nature of quo warranto can lie at the instance of private relater against the Member of the Privy Council whose appointment was alleged to be invalid. In Speyer's case (supra) it was pointed out that an information in the nature of quo warranto can lie at the instance of private relater against the Member of the Privy Council whose appointment was alleged to be invalid. In this connection the Supreme Court has observed in Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1962 SC 1044 ) that the right that can be enforced under Art. 226 also shall ordinarily be the personal or individual right of the petitioner himself, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule may have to be relaxed or modified. It is equally well settled that a writ of quo warranto may not issue on a belated application, nor will the court grant a quo warranto in a case where a mere irregularity can he cured.(See AIR 1954 All 227 ): (1953All LS 678) (FB) and (1916) 1 KB 595 (supra)). 13. It is in the light of this legal position that the problem posed before us in the present appeals must be decided. Coming to the facts of the case, Dr. A.C. Saxena has been appointed as Deputy Director (Homeopathy) on ad hoc basis. He has also been asked to mean while look after the work of Principal, National Homeopathic College, Lucknow. The petitioners respondents had contended that Dr. A.C. Saxena is not possessed of the essential qualifications required for the post of Deputy Director (Homeopathy) as well as the Principal of the said College. The essential qualifications for the temporary post of Deputy Director (Homeopathy) were mentioned in the advertisement dated 3-1-1972 as follows : Essential Qualifications : 1. Intermediate, Science (Biology) 2. Degree or diploma course in Homoeopathy from any institution recognised by Homoeopathic Medicine Board, U. P. OR Diploma in Homoeopathy from any recognised State Homoeopathy Board in India or outside India in addition to the graduate in modern medicines. 3. At least 10 years experience in profession and office in the institutions and hospitals recognised by the State Govt which must be equivalent to at least five years' experience as gazetted officer. 4. Sufficient knowledge of Hindi and English. Preferential : 1. President of any Homeopathic institution or administrative experience in any Govt. Department and knowledge of Govt. rules and regulations. 2. Research in Homeopathy or any foreign recognised qualification. 3. 4. Sufficient knowledge of Hindi and English. Preferential : 1. President of any Homeopathic institution or administrative experience in any Govt. Department and knowledge of Govt. rules and regulations. 2. Research in Homeopathy or any foreign recognised qualification. 3. At least two years teaching experience. Age 35 to 45 years as on 10-12-1971 as per age in High School Certificate. Similarly the qualifications required for the permanent post of Deputy Director (Homeopathy) were mentioned in the Public Service Commission advertisement dated 2-8-1975 as under : Essential Qualifications : (1) A degree of Homeopathy from a University established by law; or a degree of four years diploma equivalent thereto in Homeopathy recognised by Homeopathy Medicine Board U. P., or a degree in Homeopathy from a University to such degree or diploma registrable under Homeonathic Medicine Act (as amended from time to time) provided that its training period is not less than five years. (2) Ten years' profession and office experience in a Homeopathic College recognised by the State (at least five years' experience on a gazetted post or equivalent post) and (3) Adequate knowledge of English. Preferential : (1) Experience as a president of any Homeopathic institution or administrative experience of any Govt. Department and knowledge of Govt. rules and regulations. (2) Research in Homeopathy or any recognised foreign qualification such as D.F. (Hom) London and (3) At least 2 years teaching experience. Age between 35 and 45 years. Maximum age limit relaxable in case of candidates otherwise well qualified. The advertisement dated 3-1-1972 required that the candidates who possessed degree or diploma course in Homeopathy from an institution recognised by Homeopathic Medicine Board, U P. were eligible for the post. Advertisement dated 2-6-1975 required the candidates for the post of Deputy Director to possess a degree of Homeopathy from a University established by law or a degree or four years diploma or equivalent thereto in Homeopathy recognised by Homeopathic Medicine Board, U.P. The submission on behalf of the petitioners was that in view of the advertisement dated 3-1-1972 only that candidate was qualified to be considered for appointment to the post of Deputy Director (Homeopathy) to whom a degree or diploma in Homoeopathy had been awarded by any institution recognised by the Homeopathic Medicine Board, U.P.; in other words, if a diploma in Homeopathy had been awarded by an institution which was not recognised by Homeopathic Medicine Board. U.P. the candidate holding such diploma would not be deemed to answer the essential quali fications prescribed for the post of Deputy Director as mentioned in the said advertisement. Dr. A.C. Saxena admittedly holds a D. M. S. diploma which was awarded to him by the General Council and State Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine, West Bengal. It is stated in the counter-affidavit of Dr. A.C. Saxena dated 10-11-1975 filed in Writ Petition No. 631 of 1974 that the said General Council and State Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine, West Bengal is recognised by the Homeopathic Medicine Board, U.P. as also Central Council of Homeopathy, established under the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973. It is further stated in the said counter-affidavit that the D.M.S. diploma course is a regular four years course in which regular attendance is taken and instructions imparted by qualified teachers. He also stated that he had attended full four years' course as a regular student at the Calcutta Homeopathic Medicine College and Hospital, Calcutta from 1955 to 1957 and passed the D.M.S. Final Examination in June, 1957. The D.M.S. diploma is recognised for registration purposes by the Homeopathic Medicine Board, U.P. The State Homeopathic Medicine Board, respondent No. 4 had filed a counter-affidavit in Writ Petition No. 3091 of 1975. In para 11 of that counter affidavit it is stated that under Notification dated 13-2-1956 the Board had, prescribed the diplomas which are recognised for the purpose of registration under S. 32 of the U.P. Homoeopathic Medicine Act. It is further stated that the Board had not recognised institutions but only degrees or diploma given or awarded by various institutions and the institutions mentioned in the said Notification have not been recognised by the Board for purposes of affiliations under S. 41 (1) of the said Act. A true copy of the notification dated 5-2-1956 is annexure D-2 to the said counter-affidavit. The relevant portion of the said notification is reproduced below : Regulations The following degrees or diploma of the Homeopathic Medical Colleges are recognised for the purpose of registration under S. 32 of the U.P. Homeopathic Medicine Act, 1951 U.P. Act No. VIII of 1952. The D. M. S. diploma of West Bengal Faculty is thus recognised for the purpose of registration under S. 32 of U.P. Act VIII of 1952 hereinafter called the U.P. Act. The D. M. S. diploma of West Bengal Faculty is thus recognised for the purpose of registration under S. 32 of U.P. Act VIII of 1952 hereinafter called the U.P. Act. Name of the College Degree or diploma Date of Institution of diploma or degree. * * * 2. Calcutta Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Calcutta. 1. M.M.B. (4 years), 2. B.M.B.S. (4 year), 3. D.M.S. of West Bengal Faculty. 1926 1937 1944 * * * 14. It is now to be seen whether the D. M. S. Diploma awarded to A.C. Saxena is covered by advertisement dated 3-1-1972. The Homeopathic Medicine Board, U.P. has no doubt recognised this diploma for the purpose of registration under S. 32 of U.P. Act. The Board has, however, not recognised the institution which had granted that diploma. However, the institution which had awarded the diploma of D.M.S. to Dr. A.C. Saxena is recognised under the Homeopathy Central Council Act, 1973 hereinafter called the Central Act. S. 13 of the Central Act states that the medical qualifications granted by any University, Board or institution in India which are included in the Second Schedule shall be recognised qualifications for the purpose of the Act. The General Council and State Faculty of Homeopathic Medicine, West Bengal and the Central Council of Homoeopathy, West Bengal awarding diploma in medicine and surgery are included in the Second Schedule of the Central Act. S. 15 of the Central Act provides that any medical qualifications included in the second or the Third Schedule shall be sufficient qualification for enrolment on any State Register of Homoepathy. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 15 provides that no person, other than a practitioner of Homeopathy who possesses a recognised medical qualification and is enrolled on a State Register or the Central Register of Homeopathy shall hold office as Homeopathic physician or any other office (by whatever designation called) in Government or in any institution main tamed by a local or other authority, Dr. A.C. Saxena is a registered Homeopathic practitioner having registration No. H 12022 vide registration certificate issued by the Homeopathic Medicine Board, U.P. Lucknow hence by virture of S. 15 of the Central Act he is entitled to practise homeopathy and is also competent to hold office as homeopathic physician, or any other office by whatever designation called in Government or in any institution maintained by a local or other authority. 15. 15. S. 31 of the U.P. Act deals with the persons who are entitled to be registered for the purpose of practising in Homeopathic Medicine. It provides that every person possessing the qualification mentioned in the schedule, subject to the provisions contained in the Act shall be entitled to have his name entered in the register maintained by the Board. Cl. 2 of the Schedule provides that homeopaths who have passed an examination from a homeophathic institution in the State or outside it may apply for registration provided that such institution is recognised by the Board. Under S. 55 of the U.P. Act the Board may frame regulations for regulating conditions on which institutions may be affiliated or recognised for the purpose of registration under S. 31. In sub-sec. (3) of S. 46 a registered practitioner shall be eligible to hold any appointment as a physician, surgeon or other medical officer in any Homeopathic dispensary, hospital, infirmary or lying in hospital supported by or receiving grant from the State Government or in any public establishment, body or institution dealing with such systems of medicine. 16. As already indicated the Homeopathic Medicine Board, U.P. has in exercise of the powers conferred by S. 32 read with S. 55 of the U.P. Act. made regulations recognising degree or diplomas of the Homeopathic Medical College for the purpose of registration under S. 32 of the said Act. The Board has thus recognised the D. M. S. diploma of West Bengal Faculty of the Calcutta Homoeopathic Medical College and Hospital, Calcutta. The diploma of D.M.S. held by Dr. A.C. Saxena is thus duly recognised by Homoeopathic Medicine Board, U.P. We are, therefore, of the view that the essential qualification mentioned against serial No, 2 in the advertisement dated 3-1-1972 for the post of Deputy Director (Homoeopathy) was possessed by Dr. A.C. Saxena. It is not in dispute that he had passed his Inter Science Examination with biology and thus also possessed the essential qualification mentioned against serial No. 1 of the said advertisement. It was, however, observed by the Selection Committee that he did not have full ten years' experience in profession and office in the institutions and hospitals recognised by the State Government and thus partly lacked the essential qualification mentioned against serial No. 3 in the said advertisement. It was, however, observed by the Selection Committee that he did not have full ten years' experience in profession and office in the institutions and hospitals recognised by the State Government and thus partly lacked the essential qualification mentioned against serial No. 3 in the said advertisement. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was placed before the Government, and the Government was made aware of this shortcoming in Dr. A.C. Saxena, Dr. A.C. Saxena was, however, appointed on ad hoc basis as Deputy Director (Homoeopathy) for a certain fixed period, which period was extended from time to time. The Government has impliedly made relaxation in the essential qualification while appointing Dr. A.C. Saxena as Deputy Director on ad hoc basis. The appointment of Dr. A.C. Saxena as Deputy Director indicates implied relaxation in the said requirement of essential qualifications prescribed for the said post. With respect, we find ourselves unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that Deputy Director (Homoeopathy) Dr. A.C. Saxena, did not possess the requisite academic qualifications prescribed for that post. 17. The qualifications for the post of Principal, National Homeopathic College, Lucknow are prescribed as under : Essential Qualifications : 1. Degree in Homoeopathy from a University established by law or a Degree or a four year Diploma or equivalent qualification in Homoeopathy recognised by the Board of Homoeopathic Medicine, U.P. or a degree a diploma of a University or Board registered under U.P. Homeopathic Medicine Act, 1951 (as amended from time to time) provided the duration of study had not been less than five years. 2. Ten years teaching experience in a recognised Homoeopathic teaching institution, including three years administrative experience of running a Homoepathic College, Hospital or Re-search Institute and. 3. Adequate knowledge of English and Hindi. Preferential Qualifications : 1. Post Graduate qualification in Homeopathy from any reputed Indian or foreign University/College or D.F. Horn (London). 2. Writing of original research papers and books in Homoeopathy and 3. Degree in Modern Medical Science. When the post of Principal was re-advertised the same qualifications were mentioned therein. 3. Adequate knowledge of English and Hindi. Preferential Qualifications : 1. Post Graduate qualification in Homeopathy from any reputed Indian or foreign University/College or D.F. Horn (London). 2. Writing of original research papers and books in Homoeopathy and 3. Degree in Modern Medical Science. When the post of Principal was re-advertised the same qualifications were mentioned therein. However, the essential qualifications were modified by corrigendum No. 1 printed at page 1642 of the T.J. P. Gazette dated 10-11-1973 which stated as under : "In partial modification of Ayog's advertisement No. A 673 EB-6 dated June 6, 1973 for Principal National Homoeopathic Medical College, and Hospital Lucknow it is hereby notified for general information that essential qualification No. 2 may now be read as under : "Ten years teaching experience in a recognised Homoeopathic College, which would include two years administrative experience of running Homoeopathic College, Hospital or Research Institution and two years experience of practice as a registered Homoeopathic Physician; or Ten years experience of working in recognised Homoeopathic College, Hospital or Research institution which must include at least four years teaching experience as lecturer/Reader/ Professor and the remaining experience may be practice as a Registered Homeopathic Physician and administrative experience of running a recognised Homoeopathic College, Hospital or Research Institution. Other qualifications etc., remained unchanged." Dr. A.C. Saxena was asked by the Government on 30-11-1973 to look after the work of Principal, National Homoeopathic College, Lucknow in addition to his own duties till a suitable candidate was available for appointment as recommended by the Public Service Commission. That being so, the question of his not fulfilling the essential qualification prescribed for the post of Principal is not of such relevance. We, however. fend that Dr. A.C. Saxena being possessed of four years' diploma recognised by the Board of Homoeopathic Medicine, U.P. has the requisite academic qualifications as prescribed for the said post of Principal. The order requiring Dr. A.C. Saxena to look after the work of Principal of the said College could not, therefore, be said to be illegal and Dr. A.C. Saxena cannot be called an usurper of the post of Principal. 18. The contention on behalf of the petitioners was that the appointment of Dr. A.C. Saxena as Deputy Director was in violation of the rules and was illegal, and as such he was an usurper of the said post. A.C. Saxena cannot be called an usurper of the post of Principal. 18. The contention on behalf of the petitioners was that the appointment of Dr. A.C. Saxena as Deputy Director was in violation of the rules and was illegal, and as such he was an usurper of the said post. It was maintained on their behalf that Dr. A.C. Saxena did not possess the academic qualifications and admittedly lacked administrative experience as prescribed for the said post. We have already held above that Dr. A.C. Saxena possess the academic qualifications prescribed for the post of Deputy Director (Homoeopathy). He however, lacked administrative experience as was prescribed by the advertisement of 1972 when he was appointed to the said post. Could it be said that the ad hoc appointment of Dr. A.C. Saxena as Deputy Director was, therefore, not in accordance with law. In our view it is not possible to say so. The qualifications mentioned in the two advertisements for the post of Deputy Director (Homoeopathy) are not prescribed by any statute or rule having the force of law. These two advertisements could in our view be characterised as executive instructions issued in exercise of the power under Art. 162 of the Constitution of India. The power of the State Government to exercise its executive power in the matter of its servants is not fettered in the absence of legislation or rules made under Art. 309 of the Constitution. It is not obligatory for the Government under the proviso to Art. 309 to make rules of recruitment before the services can be constituted or posts created. (See B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Mysore AIR 1966 SC 1942 ; and T. Cajee v. D. Jormonik Siem, AIR 1961 SC 276 ). If no rules exist the Governor may pass orders in exercise of his powers under Art. 162 of the Constitution. Where rules are not framed the Governor can in exercise of his power under Art. 162 make administrative orders for the purpose of regulating the conditions of service. Administrative instructions are not law within the meaning of Art. 13 of the Constitution. The contention of the petitioners respondents that the provisions of the said two advertisements should be reckoned to have the force of law does not seem to have merits. Administrative instructions are not law within the meaning of Art. 13 of the Constitution. The contention of the petitioners respondents that the provisions of the said two advertisements should be reckoned to have the force of law does not seem to have merits. The instructions contained in the said advertisements are not addressed to any statute, but only to the executive power under Art. 162 of the Constitution. They cannot, therefore, be regarded as law within the meaning of Art. 13 of the Constitution and their violation will not in our view sustain a petition for a writ of quo warranto. Dr. A.C. Saxena, who was appointed by the Government to fill the post of Deputy Director (Homoeopathy) only on ad hoc basis, might not have been possessing at the relevant time the requisite experience as mentioned in the advert,sements in question. The Government was made aware of it but the Government seems to have relaxed it and appointed him as Deputy Director on ad hoc basis. This appointment, in these circumstances, cannot be said to be in violation of any statutory provision of law. It cannot, therefore, be said to be ultra vires, or contrary to law. The direction of the Government to Dr. A.C. Saxena to look after the work of Principal in addition to his own duty was also for the same reason not ultra vices. In the circumstances, the motion for a writ of quo warranto must rail as against Dr. A.C. Saxena. 19. The appointment of Dr. G. S. Chaudhry and Dr. J. Chandra were also challenged on the ground that they were not made in conformity with the requirements of the advertisement for the post of Professors inasmuch as they lacked essential qualifications by not having the requisite academic or administrative experience. We are unable to accept the contention in the view we have taken above. G. S. Chaudhry and Dr. J. Chandra were also challenged on the ground that they were not made in conformity with the requirements of the advertisement for the post of Professors inasmuch as they lacked essential qualifications by not having the requisite academic or administrative experience. We are unable to accept the contention in the view we have taken above. In the advertisements issued by the Public Service Commission, a copy of which is Annexure 9 to Writ Petition No. 631 of 1974 the qualifications for the posts of Professor of Homoeopathic Philosophy and Organ, and Professor of Materia Medical and Therapeutica were mentioned as follows : Qualifications : Essential : "(1) Degree in Homoeopathy from a University established by law or degree of four years diploma or equivalent qualification recognised by the Board of Homoeopathic Medicine, U.P. or any other qualification in Homoeopathy from any Institution of Board regisrable under U.P. Homoeopathic Medicine Act, 1915 provided the duration of the course is at least 4 years; (2) at least 5 years teaching experience as Lecturer or an equivalent post in the subject concerned in any recognised Homoeopathic Medical College, and M Adequate knowledge of Hindi and English. Preferential. (1) Degree in Homoeopathy from a foreign University or College and D. P. Hom. London; (2) Research in Homoeopathic work and writing of books on Homoeopathy; (3) Experience and knowledge of working in Homoeopathic Hospital, and (4) Administrative experience." These posts of Professors have been filled up on ad hoc basis, one by the appointment of Dr. G. S. Chaudhry on 27-6-1974 and the other by the appointment of Dr. J. Chandra on 16-7-1974. Dr. Chaudhry had, after obtaining H.M.B. Diploma, done the condensed course and obtained D.M.S. degree in the year 1951. He had, therefore, in our view the requisite academic qualification. Similarly Dr. J. Chandra had also the requisite academic qualification. Dr. G. S. Chaudhry served as demonstrator from 1-12-1957 to 24-8-1971 and as Lecturer since 25-8-1971 Dr. J. Chandra had worked as a part time Lecturer in Mohan Homoeopathic College, Lucknow from Aug. 1968 to Dec. 1970 and as senior part-time Lecturer at the National Homoeopathic Medical College, Luck-now from Dec. 1968 to April, 1972 and from April, 1972 as Lecturer in the same College on the basis of the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. J. Chandra had worked as a part time Lecturer in Mohan Homoeopathic College, Lucknow from Aug. 1968 to Dec. 1970 and as senior part-time Lecturer at the National Homoeopathic Medical College, Luck-now from Dec. 1968 to April, 1972 and from April, 1972 as Lecturer in the same College on the basis of the recommendations of the Public Service Commission. It is stated in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 dated 16-1-1975 in Writ Petition No. 631 of 1974 that in appointing Dr. J. Chandra in the National Homoeopathic Medical College, Lucknow the Public Service Commission and the State Government recognised the part time service rendered by him as Lecturer for the purpose of counting three years' experience in teaching required for appointment as Lecturer in the National Homoeopathic Medical College, Lucknow. Thus, while considering the five years teaching experience required for the post of Professor the services rendered by Dr. J. Chandra as part-time Lecturer were taken into account. Dr. J. Chandra was, therefore, considered possessing the necessary five years teaching experience for purposes of appointment of Professor in the National Homoeopathic Medical College, Lucknow. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the ad hoc appointment of Dr. G.S. Chaudhry and Dr. J. Chandra as Professors was necessary in the in test of teaching work, and that the lack of administrative experience was waived by the Government because an immediate appointment was required to be made in public interest. It appears that interview was held by the Public Service Commission on 13-3-1975 and Dr. G.S. Chaudhry, was selected for the post of Professor. The petitioner respondent was also interviewed by the Public Service Commission for the post of Professor but was not selected. The approval of the Government to the selection of Dr. G.S. Chaudhry as Professor was conveyed by the State Government vide G.O. No. 2041-Sec IX/5-1083/70 dated August, 1975. Any lack of administrative experience either by Dr. G. S. Chaudhry or by Dr. J. Chandra was thus waived. Their appointment as Professor cannot, in these circumstances be said to be in violation of any statutory provision and the petitioner-respondent would therefore not be entitled to a writ of quo warranto. In fact, the Government may, in proper circumstances relax the qualifications and make appointments in public in terest. J. Chandra was thus waived. Their appointment as Professor cannot, in these circumstances be said to be in violation of any statutory provision and the petitioner-respondent would therefore not be entitled to a writ of quo warranto. In fact, the Government may, in proper circumstances relax the qualifications and make appointments in public in terest. Quo warranto proceedings will not lie to oust an appointed officer whose qualifications have been passed by the Government or by the Public Service Commission. For the reasons mentioned above the motion for a writ of quo warranto must fail as against Dr. G. S. Chaudhry and Dr. J. Chandra as well. 20. In the result, the Special Appeals are allowed and Writ Petitions No. 631 of 1974 and No. 3091 of 1975 are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.