JUDGMENT R. M. Sahai, J.:- I agree with brother Yadav. J. that the petition should be dismissed. But I would like to add few words. 2. Vacancy for the post of Assistant Librarian arose in 1983. For it applications were invited from officials working in establishment of the Court. Since none of the applicants possessed degree in Library Science one of the necessary qualifications for the post the Chief Justice on recommendation of Office directed that persons holding diploma in Library Science may be considered provided they fulfilled other requirements. Thereafter the applications were examined by the Chairman of the Library Committee and he recommended that the opposite party be appointed as he was better qualified and eminently suitable. His recommendation was accepted by the Chief Justice. 3. From Government order d t. 24th Nov., 1982 by which this post was created it is clear that an incumbent was required to have. (i) Degree in Law, (ii) Degree in Library Science, (iii) Experience of two years. Whether the Chief Justice could have granted relaxation or not but the grievance cannot be made by petitioner. He too did not hold a degree in Library Science. He became eligible only due to relaxation granted by the Chief Justice. But he could not be selected as he was not a graduate even. a person who participated in the selection but failed cannot be permitted to challenge the method and manner of selection when he himself would have been out but for the relaxation. 4. The petition, therefore, fails and is dis missed. B. L. Yadav, J. :- 5. By the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for a writ of Que Warranto asking the respondent No. 3 Sri Ajay Kumar Assistant Librarian to demonstrate his authority to hold the office of the Assistant Librarian and for a writ of Certiorari quashing the notice dated 20th Aug., 1983 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) inviting applications from the officials of the establishment of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for being considered for the appointment on the post of Assistant Librarian at Lucknow Bench of this Court in the pay scale of Rs. 69(Y 1420 and the order dated 24( h April, 1987 and 30th April, 1983 passed by the Registrar of the High Court, respondent No. 2 (Annexures 5 and 6) appointing Ajay Kumar lower division assistant as the Assistant Librarian and by subsequent order appointing hint as officiating Assistant Librarian and also for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 not to work as Assistant Librarian. 6. The facts of the case more or less, are admitted. The post for the Assistant Librarian at Lucknow Bench of (his Court fell vacant consequently by a notice dated 20th Aug., 1983 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) applications were invited from the officials working in the establishment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad including Lucknow Bench. But later on the post was transferred from Lucknow Bench to the Allahabad. The petitioner has passed his intermediate examination only. He was not holding a degree in law and library science consequently his application for the appointment was rejected and Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court on the recommendations of the Chairman of the Library Committee modified the requisite minimum qualification of degree or diploma in library science, to certificate in library science and the respondent No. 3, having been found suitable amongst the applicants, was appointed.to the post of Assistant Librarian by the impugned order dated 29th April. II M7 t Annexure 5 to the petition) later on he was appointed as officiating assistant librarian by order dated .1ll(h April, 1987 (Annexure ). 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that respondent No. 3 did not possess the requisite qualification inasmuch as even though he was holding a degree in law but did not hold a degree or diploma in library science and Hon'hle the Chief Justice has no power in exercise of powers provided under R. 45 01 Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules. 1970 (for short the Rules), to relax the qualification of degree or diploma in library science to a certificate in library science. It was also urged that the exercise of power by Hon'hle the Chief Justice in the absence of any specific provision amounts to legislation for which he is not empowered. 1970 (for short the Rules), to relax the qualification of degree or diploma in library science to a certificate in library science. It was also urged that the exercise of power by Hon'hle the Chief Justice in the absence of any specific provision amounts to legislation for which he is not empowered. Reliance was placed on Ramanna Dayaram Shetti v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1970 SC 1628 and P. K. Ram Chandra lyer v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 541 1 1984 Lab IC 301. 8. On the other hand learned Standing Counsel representing Hon'hle the Chief Justice and Registrar and learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3 urged that in view of Rule 45 of the Rules Hon'ble the Chief Justice has got sufficient powers to pass any orders as he may consider fit. in respect of recruitment, promotion, confirmation or any other matter. As the petitioner was not having even graduate's degree nor degree in law, rather he has just passed his intermediate examination hence he was lacking requisite qualification of degree in law consequently his application has correctly been rejected. No case of issuing any writ, order or direction has been made out. Reliance was placed on M. G. Gurumoorty v. Accountant General, Assam. AIR 1971 SC 1850 . 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties first point for determination is as to whether Hon'hle the Chief Justice of this Court has power under R. 45 of the Rules to relax the qualification of degree or diploma in library science, to a certificate in library science and second point is whether the petitioner has got any legal right to the office of the Assistant Librarian and the third point is whether under the circumstances of the case the appointment of respondent No. 3 was legal and consistent with the statutory provisions. 10. As regards the first point about the power of Hon'ble the Chief Justice under R. 45 of the Rules the relevant statutory provision is set out : "45. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Chief Just ice shall have the power to make such orders, as he may consider fit, in respect of recruitment promotion, confirmation or any other matter." 11. The elementary rule of construction of the Statute is that it must be read as a whole. This principle is called Fx Visceribus Actus. Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the Chief Just ice shall have the power to make such orders, as he may consider fit, in respect of recruitment promotion, confirmation or any other matter." 11. The elementary rule of construction of the Statute is that it must be read as a whole. This principle is called Fx Visceribus Actus. '['here must be it harmonious construction between the two provisions of a Statute. This is with a view to further the object of the Statute. I t is to he preferred to a construction which leads to conflict between the two provisions. (See Philips India Ltd. v. Labour Court. Madras, AIR 1985 SC 1034 : 11985 Lab IC 854). C.W.T. v. Yuvraj Anrcinder Singh. 1985).4 SCC 6O8: ( AIR 1986 SC 959 . 12. Lord Blackburn had enlarged upon the terms of Lord Wensleydale in River Wear Commrs. v. Adamson, ( 1877)2 App Cas 743 at p. 764 in these words "I believe that it is not disputed that what Lord Wensleydale used to call the golden rule is right, vi-/., that we are to take the whole statute together, and construe it altogether, giving the words their ordinary signification, unless when SO applied they produce an inconsistency." A reference has been made to a lain maxim 'Nemo Enim Aliquam Partem Recte Intelligere Potest Antequam Totunt Iterum Atque Itcrum Perlegerit' in Lincoln College case. ( 1595) 3 Co. Rep. 58 b which means that it Judge has to make constructions of all parts of the Statute together and nut of One part only by itself. Similarly there is an observation that no one can rightly under stand any part without perusing the whole again and again. See Re. A. Debtor ( 1950) Ch 42.1 at page 431. 13. In the present case Rule 45 may be read along with Rule 41. In order to have it harmonious construction of the relevant provisions of the Rules, exabundante caul(-la, Rule 41 is set out as below : "41. See Re. A. Debtor ( 1950) Ch 42.1 at page 431. 13. In the present case Rule 45 may be read along with Rule 41. In order to have it harmonious construction of the relevant provisions of the Rules, exabundante caul(-la, Rule 41 is set out as below : "41. Residuary Powers : Nothing in these rules shall be deemed to affect the power of the Chief Justice to make such orders, from time to time, as lie may deem fit in regard to all matters incidental or ancillary to these rules not specifically provided for herein or in regard to matters as have not been sufficiently provided fur:" Further in respect of interpretation also the Chief Justice has been given special powers in the following words : "42. Interpretation : All questions relating to the interpretation of these rules shall be referred to the Chief Justice. whose decision thereon shall be final." 14. Under these Rules no doubt the Chief Justice has been given powers to make such orders as he may consider fit in respect of recruitment promotion, confirmation etc. In the working of these Rules in respect of employees of the High Court. the difficulties may arise in day to day working keeping in view the particular situation that may arise in future but the same might no)( have been contemplated when these Rules were framed. It is well known that Statutes seek to control the future whereas they are framed in past. These rules are man-made, and there are hound to be casus omissus which Obviously connotes that it measure of direction has to be imported into every decision to be taken from time 'to time in the cases of service matters or recruitment of the employees and in the application (II these rules tot he existing situation. Statutes are designed to operate over an indefinite period of time. hence the Court or any person called upon to apply these rules to the existing situation has to think in a time continuum. There remains always a time gap when the Statute is framed and when it is applied in future. The application of particular rules to a given situation in future has been described in Keys v. Boulter,( 1971) I QB 300 at. P 305: 1971) 1 All ER 289, at p. 292. There remains always a time gap when the Statute is framed and when it is applied in future. The application of particular rules to a given situation in future has been described in Keys v. Boulter,( 1971) I QB 300 at. P 305: 1971) 1 All ER 289, at p. 292. Application of these Rules is a continuing process and the application of a provision to a particularcase is only one step in it journey. The provisions contained in the non obstante clause are contradistinctive to the expression 'subject to'. In other words it means that in spite of the fact that some of her provision might have been made, but under Rule 45 the Chief Justice has no doubt power to pass on an order in a particular situation. We, however, refrain to express any concluded opinion on the ambit and extent of this power. 15. Earlier, Article 278 of the Constitution, even though omitted by the Constitution 7th Amendment Act 1956 did contain the non obstante clause to the effect 'notwithstanding any thing contained in the Constitution'. This was in fact equivalent to say that in spite of other provisions of the Constitution or that her Article shall not he impediment to the Article 278. Rule 45 of the Rules provides that other Rules would not be impediment to the powers of Hon'ble the Chief Justice to pass a particular order in case he is faced with am unprecedented situation in the matters of recruitment promotion or qualification of the employees etc. or in regard to matters which have not been sufficiently provided for. 16. Under R. 16(f) of the Rules, for the post of librarian the appointment could have been made by promotion of Deputy or Assistant Librarian or Upper Division Assistants doing the library work, if he possesses requisite qualifications prescribed for direct recruitment. For the post of Assistant Librarian no separate conditions or qualifications have been indicated. Under R. 17 it has been provided that a candidate for direct recruitment to the post of Librarian must be a Law-Graduate and must also hold a Library Science Degree or Diploma. In the present case the appointment was not for the post of Librarian rather it was for the post of Assistant Librarian. After scrutinising the applications received no candidate was found to have possessed all the qualifications. In the present case the appointment was not for the post of Librarian rather it was for the post of Assistant Librarian. After scrutinising the applications received no candidate was found to have possessed all the qualifications. The candidates possessing law degree did not possess degree or diploma in library science. Consequently the matter was referred to the Chairman Library Committee and he gave his opinion and referred the same for consideration of Hon'ble the Chief Justice that under the circumstance the qualification of degree or diploma in Library Science be relaxed to certificate in library science. That was approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice and as such the requisite qualification remained degree in law and certificate in Library Science. The respondent No. 3 was possessed of requisite qualification consequently he was selected whereas the petitioner having passed just intermediate examination did not possess requisite qualification hence he could not be selected or the post of Assistant Librarian. Under t he circumstances we are of the opinion that Hon'ble the Chief Justice has power under R. 45, to relax the qualification in special circumstances. 17. Reverting to the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ramanna Dayaram Shetti v. International Airport Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628 was a case of noassistance in as much as their Lordships in para 34 at page 165() ruled as follows : "1st respondent was not entitled to depart from it and to award the contract to the 4th respondents who did not satisfy the condition of eligibility prescribed by the standard or norm. If t here was no acceptable tender from a person who satisfied the condition of eligibility, the 1st respondent could have rejected the tenders and invited fresh tenders on the basis of a less stringent standard or norm, but it could not depart from the standard or norm, prescribed by it and arbitrarily accept the tender of the 4th respondent." In the present case before us, before the appointment could he made to the post of Assistant Librarian the requisite qualification of degree in Library Science was reduced to a Certificate in Library Science by Hon'ble the Chief Justice in exercise of powers given under Rule 45, on the recommendation of Chairman Library Committee. As such aforesaid case is of no assistance to the petitioner. 18. As such aforesaid case is of no assistance to the petitioner. 18. Similarly P. K. Ramchandra Iyer v. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 541 : (1984 Lab IC301) was case where Dr. M. did not full fill either original or amplified essential qualification pertaining to experience and Dr. G. did satisfy this and other essential qualifications consequently Dr. M. being ineligible for the post, his selection was set aside. In the instant case petitioner himself was ineligible. He was holding neither degree of law, nor a certificate in library science rather he was simply Intermediate whereas respondent No. 3 was holding degree in law and certificate in library science. Hence petitioner cannot derive any benefit from this case. 19. On the other hand M. Gurumoorthy v. The Accountant General. Assam and Nagaland AIR 1971 SC 1850 was a case where Constitution Bench of Supreme Court interpreted Article 229 of the Constitution which provides that the appointment of the Officers and Servants of the High Court shall he made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by such other Judge or officer of the Court whom he may direct and it was ruled that exclussive power is conferred on Hon'ble the Chief Justice by clause I read with Article 229 not only in the matter of the a Appointment but also in the matter of prescribing qualifications for the appointment of officers and servants of the High Court by Rules. 20. In this view of the matter the power of Hon'ble the Chief Justice was exclusive and it was power conferred by Article 229(i) of the Constitution and the same even could not be curtailed or modified in the matter of appointment of officers and servants of the High Court. In the instant case we are of the opinion that exercising exclusive powers given under Article 229 of the Constitution and Rule45 of the Rules Hon'ble the Chief Justice has correctly passed the order modifying the qualification of degree in Library Science to a Certificate in Library Science and the respondent No. 3 has been correctly appointed to the post of Assistant Librarian. 21. Reverting to other points and taking them together whether petitioner was entitled to the writ of information in the nature of up Warranto in relation to the petitioner's legal rights, and as to whether petitioner was entitled to the writ of information prayed for. 21. Reverting to other points and taking them together whether petitioner was entitled to the writ of information in the nature of up Warranto in relation to the petitioner's legal rights, and as to whether petitioner was entitled to the writ of information prayed for. Much earlier in England the writ of Quo Warranto used to be issued in appropriate cases. But its use had become absolute and it did not serve the desired purpose consequently it was replaced by information in the nature of Quo Warranto, but when it also did not deliver the appropriate results, it as replaced by an injunction accompanied by an order declaring the office vacant. It is better to quote relevant portion of para 169, volume 1, HaLsbury's Laws of England 4th Edition "An information in the nature of Quo Warranto which lay against a person. who claimed or usurped an office ........ to enquire by that authority he supported his claim in order that right to office might be determined. It also lay in cases of non-user, abuse, or long neglect of a franchise." Similar statement as aforesaid was quoted with approval in University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao AIR 1965 SC 491 , (See R. v. Speyer. 1916) 1 KB 595 at page 6W and R. v. Cassel, 85 LJKB6 )) Any person either having an interest or being a stranger acting bona fidely can apply for writ of quo warranto. The persons like the present petitioner who have got some special interest can certainly file the writ petition for the writ of Quo Warranto. The next corollary is as to whet her it can be said that the respondent No. 3 has usurped the public office without any authority of law. It goes without saying that the vacancy was notified according to rules. Applications were invited. The petitioner applied but he has passed only intermediate and was not even a graduate nor he was having LLB. It goes without saying that the vacancy was notified according to rules. Applications were invited. The petitioner applied but he has passed only intermediate and was not even a graduate nor he was having LLB. degree nor diploma in library science his candidature was rejected whereas the respondent No. 3 was having Law degree and, Certificate in library science and the qualification of diploma or degree in library science was reduced to a certificate in library science by the Chief Justice consequently the respondent No. 3 was legally appointed and it cannot be said by any strech of imagination that the respondent No. 3 has usurped the office of Assistant Librarian without authority of law. The petitioner cannot be said to be entitled to the relief of information or injunction in the nature of Quo Warranto. 22. In the premises aforesaid there are no merits in the present petition consequently it is dismissed without any order as to costs. (By the Court) 23. For reasons stated by us the petition fails and is dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.