Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is a resident of Thilashpet, Puducherry and also the General Secretary of the Puducherry Makkal Vizhipunarchi Eyakkam, seeking writ in the nature of quo warranto questioning the authority under which the fifth respondent is functioning as the Law Secretary to the Government of Puducherry. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that by G.O.Ms.No.49, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, dated 09.05.2012, the fifth respondent who was functioning as the Deputy Secretary to the Government (Law) was appointed as the Law Secretary to the Government, Puducherry. Since he has been given the scale of pay with grade pay, it should be taken as a regular promotion. When the fifth respondent was not qualified for holding the said post, they ought to have appointed a regular qualified person on regular basis by considering the case of eligible candidates by notifying the post to the UPSC. Therefore, the petitioner had requested the Chief Secretary, Puducherry and the Secretary to Government, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi to cancel the appointment made in favour of the fifth respondent and intimate the UPSC to fill up the post on regular basis. 3. It is not clear as to how such a writ petition in the nature of quo warranto will lie when the order itself stated that it was purely on adhoc basis till the post is filed up on regular basis. Even the copy of the note file produced by the petitioner and approved by the Chief Secretary to the Government showed that no eligible persons for promotion were available and that the next option was to bring somebody on deputation. An action should be initiated to notify the post to the UPSC and that considerable time will be taken for making regular appointment. Hence the fifth respondent was directed to hold charge of the post as it cannot be kept vacant. 4. When the matter came up today, Mr.T.Murugesan, learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) took notice on behalf of the first and second respondents. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to submit as to how the writ in the nature of quo warranto will lie as it was an adhoc appointment till the regular selection is made. 5. 4. When the matter came up today, Mr.T.Murugesan, learned Government Pleader (Puducherry) took notice on behalf of the first and second respondents. The counsel for the petitioner is unable to submit as to how the writ in the nature of quo warranto will lie as it was an adhoc appointment till the regular selection is made. 5. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in B.Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (2), wherein in an identical circumstance, the Supreme Court declined to grant any relief and explained the circumstances under which writ in the nature of quo warranto will be issued. The following passages found in paragraphs 43, 44,49, 57 and 59 may be usefully extracted below: "43.Whether a writ of quo warranto lies to challenge an appointment made “until further orders” on the ground that it is not a regular appointment? Whether the High Court failed to follow the settled law that a writ of quo warranto cannot be issued unless there is a clear violation of law? The order appointing the appellant clearly stated that the appointment is until further orders. The terms and conditions of appointment made it clear that the appointment is temporary and is until further orders. In such a situation, the High Court, in our view, erred in law in issuing a writ of quo warranto the rights under Article 226 which can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed for is for habeas corpus. 44. In the instant case, the power to appoint the Managing Director of the Board is vested in the Board under Section 4(2) of the Act. Neither the Act nor the Rules prescribed any mode of appointment or tenure of appointment. When the mode of appointment, tenure of appointment have been left to the discretion of the Government by the Act and the Rules, and the Act makes it clear that the Managing Director shall hold office at the pleasure of the Government, the High Court could not have fettered the discretion of the Government by holding that Section 4(2) of the Act does not expressly give the power to the State Government to make ad hoc or contractual appointment. When the Act and the statutory Rules have not prescribed any definite term and any particular mode, the High Court could not have read into the statute a restriction or prohibition that is not expressly prohibited by the Act and the Rules. It is well settled that when the statute does not lay down the method of appointment or term of appointment and when the Act specifies that the appointment is one of sure tenure, the appointing authority who has the power to appoint has absolute discretion in the matter and it cannot be said that discretion to appoint does not include the power to appoint on contract basis. An appointment which is temporary remains temporary and does not become permanent with the passage of time. The finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the appointment is bad for the reason that the appointment which was made on temporary basis has continued for nearly 2 years is wholly contrary to law particularly when the Act and the Rules do not stipulate maximum period of appointment. The High Court, in our view, gravely erred in issuing a writ of quo warranto when there is no clear violation of law in the appointment of the appellant. 49. The law is well settled. The High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of this nature is required to determine, at the outset, as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. 57. It is settled law that a writ of quo warranto does not lie if the alleged violation is not of a statutory nature. Three judgments relied on by Mr P.P. Rao can be usefully referred to in the present context. 59. In High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat it was held by this Court that a writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. The judgment in Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commr. & Secy. to Govt. of Haryana was also relied on." 6. In view of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. The judgment in Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commr. & Secy. to Govt. of Haryana was also relied on." 6. In view of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. It is needless to state that the Government will fill up the post on regular basis as expeditiously as possible. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.