JUDGMENT 1. THIS writ application is filed by the petitioner for issuing a writ in the nature of Quo Warrnto against the respondent no.7 for quashing her appointment to the post of Principal(Adhyaksha), Patha Bhavana, Visva-Bharati University. 2. THE facts of this case in a nut shell are as follows:- THE Visva-Bharati University is an University constituted under the Visva Bharati Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). By an advertisement no.01/2005, applications were invited by the respondent university from the prospective candidates for appointment to several posts under the respondent university including the post of Principal(Adhyaksha) of Patha Bhavan, Visva- Bharati. THE essential qualifications required for the aforesaid post of Principal(Adhyaksha), Patha Bhavan were as follows:- "Essential Qualifiction for the post of Principal, Patha-Bhavana Sl. No.28 Post graduate Degree with at least 50% marks at the Honours and P.G. Level with B. Ed or equivalent. 10 years administrative and/or Teaching experience in Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools. Desirable Qualification For Sl no.28 Knowledge on the life and work of Rabindranath Tagore. THE candidates should have the ability in written and spoken English as he has to play a Key role in Visva-Bharati Administration and in disseminating Tagore's Philosophy of education. THE candidate should be well versed in educational innovation, design of new courses and curricula. Experience in working in a residential School." In response to the above advertisement prospective candidates including the petitioner as also the respondent no.7 filed their applications in prescribed forms. 3. AMONGST other qualifications the petitioner possessed teaching experience in several Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools since 1987 including the experience of discharging functions as Headmaster of Kankutia Santidhar Ghosh Junior High School from June 26, 2003 to September 29, 2003. At the time of submitting applications form, the petitioner was working for gain as Assistant Teacher of Sri Sri Sarada Vidyapith, Dubrajpur, District Birbhum. 4. THE respondent no.7 possessed, amongst other qualifications, teaching experience in Patha Bhavan, Dankuni, Montessori and Primary, Dankuni Coal Complex Township, District Hooghly from August 1, 1992 and as Teacher in- charge of the Secondary Department Patha Bhavan, Dankuni Coal Complex Township, District Hooghly from December 7, 1999. THE respondent no.7 was appointed as Head Mistress of Patha Bhavan, Dankuni Coal Complex Township, District Hooghly with effect from July 1, 2000. THE respondent no.7 was appointed as Head Mistress of Patha Bhavan, Dankuni Coal Complex Township, District Hooghly with effect from July 1, 2000. According to the petitioner, 13 short-listed applicants including the petitioner and the respondent no.7 were interviewed by the selection committee of the respondent university on June 29, 2005. The selection committee recommended the name of the respondent no.7 for the post of Principal Patha Bhavan, Visva Bharati. 5. IT is submitted by Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that Principal (Adhyaksha), Patha Bhavan under the respondent university should be appointed by Karmasamati(executive council) on recommendation of a selection committee and he should be a whole times salaried officer of the university in accordance with the provisions of sub- clause(1) of Clause 6B of the statutes of the respondent university. So the post under reference was a statutory post. According to him, the office under reference was created by a statute and as a result, of which writ in the nature of Quo Warranto would lie. According to him the essential qualification required for the post under reference included 10 years' administrative and/or teaching experience in Secondary/Higher Secondary Schools. Admittedly, the respondent no.7 had been working in the secondary department of Patha Bhavan, Dankuni, Dankuni Coal Complex Township, district Hooghly from 1999 till consideration of her candidature for the post under reference. The above school got first recognition as a High School to open class IX from May 1, 2010 and Class X from May 1, 2001. According to him an institution having secondary level must consist of two parts, the first part of which should consist of classes VI to VIII and second part should consist of class IX and X. Admittedly the aforesaid school became a school of secondary level on and from May 1, 2001. Therefore, at the time of submitting application on or about May 30, 2005, the respondent no.7 was not possessing teaching experience of 10 years which was an essential qualification for the post under reference. According to him the suitability of the respondent no.7 could not be taken into consideration unless she had fulfilled the eligibility criteria. 6. MR Ghosh relied upon the decisions of University of Mysore Vs. C.K. Govinda, reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 , B.R. Kapur Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 231 , N. Knnadasan Vs. According to him the suitability of the respondent no.7 could not be taken into consideration unless she had fulfilled the eligibility criteria. 6. MR Ghosh relied upon the decisions of University of Mysore Vs. C.K. Govinda, reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 , B.R. Kapur Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 231 , N. Knnadasan Vs. Ajoy Khose, reported in (2009)7 SCC 1 to submit that the office of Principal(Adhyaksha) under challenge was created by a statute and invested with power or charged with the duty of, acting in execution or in enforcement of the law. As a result, a writ of Quo Warranto can be issued in this case. On the other hand it is submitted by Mr. Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, that the post under reference was not public office. Therefore, a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto cannot be issued against the respondent no.7. It is further submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya that there was no statutory recruitment rules in respect of the post of Principal (Adhyaksha), Patha Bhavan, under the respondent university. According to him a writ of Quo Warranto can only be issued for violation of statutory recruitment rules within its limited scope of application. 7. IN the second limb of his argument, drawing the attention of this court towards the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.7, it is submitted by him that Patha Bhavan, Dankuni, Dankuni Coal Complex, District Hooghly started its Secondary Section consisting of classes VI upwards in the year 1995-96. Therefore, the respondent no.7 was qualified at the time of submitting his application for the post under reference. 8. MR. Bhattacharya relies upon the decisions University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao, reported in AIR 1965 SC 491 , Dr. B. R Kapur Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2001) 7 SCC 231 and Dr. Kumar Bar Das Vs. Utkal Univeristy and Ors., reported in (1999) 1 SCC 453 in support of his submissions. Having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties as also considering the facts and circumstances of this case I find that the post of Principal (Adhyaksha), Patha Bhavan, Viswa Bharati University was created by the provisions of sub-clause (1) of clause 6B of the Statutes of the respondent university. Having heard the learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties as also considering the facts and circumstances of this case I find that the post of Principal (Adhyaksha), Patha Bhavan, Viswa Bharati University was created by the provisions of sub-clause (1) of clause 6B of the Statutes of the respondent university. Indisputedly, essential qualification asked for the post under reference included 10 years' administrative and/or teaching experience in secondary/higher secondary school. No statutory recruitment rules were framed for appointment in the post under reference. 9. A writ of quo warranto can be issued when the holder of a public office has been appointed in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. Judicial review for the purpose of issuance of writ of Quo Warranto would lie upon fulfilment of the following conditions:- i) The office concerned must be of a public nature. ii) The holder of the office has been appointed in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions. 13. Indisputably, the respondent No. 6 was appointed by Karma Samiti (Executive Council) on the recommendation of a selection committee constituted for the purpose and she was a whole-time salaried officer of the respondent university in accordance with the provisions of sub-clause (1) of Clause 6B of the Statutes of the respondent university. The respondent No.7 used to discharge her function under the control of the Karma Samiti Executive council). Neither the Karma Samiti nor the respondent no.7 was entrusted with any sovereign function. 10. BLACK's Law Dictionary (8th Edn) at page 1267 defines "public office" as under: "a position whose occupant has legal authority to exercise a Government's sovereign power for a fixed period." The essential elements of a "public office" are: (i) authority conferred by law. (ii) Fixed tenure of office. (iii) Power to exercise some portion of sovereign functions of the Government. One of the key elements of such test was that the officer was to carry out some portions of sovereign functions of the Government. That ingredient was absent in respect of the post of Principal (Adhyaksha,). Reference may be made to the decision of B. Srinavasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees Association, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 and the relevant portion of the above decision are quoted below: "76. The notification dated 31-1-2004 clearly states that the appointment is on contract basis and until further orders. Reference may be made to the decision of B. Srinavasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees Association, reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 and the relevant portion of the above decision are quoted below: "76. The notification dated 31-1-2004 clearly states that the appointment is on contract basis and until further orders. While laying down the terms of appointment in its order dated 21-4-2--4, the Government of Karnataka clearly stated that the "term of contractual appointment of Shri B. Srinivasa Reddy shall commence on 1-2-2004 and will be in force until further orders of the Government and this is a temporary appointment". Section 6(1) of the Act categorically states that the Managing Director shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government. The power and functions of the Board are laid down in Chapter V of the Act. A reading of the Act clearly shown that neither the Board nor its Managing Director is entrusted with any sovereign function. Blacks. Law Dictionary defines public office as under: "Public office.- Essential Characteristics of 'public office' are (1) authority conferred by law, (2) fixed tenure of office, and (3) power to exercise some portion of sovereign functions of Government: key element of such test is that 'officer' is carrying out sovereign function. Spring V. Constantino. Essential elements to establish public office are: position must be created by Constitution, legislature or through authority conferred by legislature, portion of sovereign power of Government must be delegated to position, duties and powers must be defined, directly or impliedly, by legislature or through legislative authority, duties must be performed independently without control or superior power other than law, and position must have some permanency and continuity. State v. Taylor. 77. Carrying out sovereign function by the Board and delegation of a portion of sovereign power of the Government to the Managing Director of the Board and some permanency and continuity in the appointment are quintessential features of public office. Every one of these ingredients are absent in the appointment of the appellant as Managing Director of the Board. This aspect of the matter was completely lost sight of by the High Court." 11. THAT apart small section of the public, namely, the students and their guardians were interested as such in the institution under reference. Every one of these ingredients are absent in the appointment of the appellant as Managing Director of the Board. This aspect of the matter was completely lost sight of by the High Court." 11. THAT apart small section of the public, namely, the students and their guardians were interested as such in the institution under reference. THAT did not bring the office of the Principal (Adhyaksha) of the above institution within the category of offices which could be described as office of a public nature. Reference may be made to the decision of Amarendra Chandra vs.- Narendra Kumar Basu, reported in AIR 1953 Cal 114 and the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below:- "It may be pointed out that in the case of R. v. St. Martin's Guardians', the office in question was prescribed in the Act of Parliament though not actually created by the Statute. The Chakrabaria High School is a Private Institution which imparts education to students of that school and receives fees from the students for imparting such education. The Managing Committee of the school is not the creature of any Stature but it is constituted by the General Committee of the South Suburban School according to certain rules framed for the purpose of constituting such Committee. The rules have no statutory force but are domestic rules governing the internal affairs of the school. Even the Revised School Code, which does not appear to have any statutory force, has no application to the constitution of the Managing Committee of this school. It is true that a small section of the public viz., the students and their guardians are interested as such in the school but that does not bring the office of the members of the Managing Committee within the category of offices which can be described as offices of a public nature. It appears to me that the offices held by the respondents are not offices in respect of which a writ of Quo Warranto lies." 12. SECONDLY, before issuing a writ of Quo Warranto the Court must be satisfied that the office of in question was held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of that usurper had been made in accordance with the constitutional or statutory provisions, as the case may be. SECONDLY, before issuing a writ of Quo Warranto the Court must be satisfied that the office of in question was held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of that usurper had been made in accordance with the constitutional or statutory provisions, as the case may be. In this case, no statutory recruitment rules have been brought on record. Therefore, Karma Samiti (Executive Council) determined the essential qualifications for the office in question. Those qualifications were not clothed with statutory recruitment rules. Therefore, writ of Quo Warranto would not lie in this case. Reference may be made to the decision of N. Kannadasan vs.- Ajoy Khose, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 1 and the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below:- "135. Issuance of a writ of quo warranto is a discretionary remedy. Authority of a person to hold a high public office can be questioned inter alia in the event an appointment is violative of any statutory provisions. There concededly exists a distinction in regard to issuance of a writ of quo warranto and issuance of a writ of certiorari. The scope and ambit of these two writs and different and district. Whereas a writ of quo warranto can be issued on a limited ground, the considerations for issuance of a writ of certiorari are wholly different." In the facts and circumstances of this case the decisions of C.D. Govinda Rao,(supra),, Dr. B. R Kapur(supra), N. Knnadasan(supra) do not help the petitioner for granting any relief in his favour. 13. IN view of the discussions and observations made hereinabove, this writ application stands dismissed. 14. THERE will be, however, no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard. Debasish Kar Gupta, J.