Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Quo Warranto, calling the third respondent to show-cause, as to how he is holding a public office as Dredging Superintendent at Chennai Port Trust, without holding the necessary qualification for the post. 2. The petitioner is working as Dredger Master on contract basis with the Chennai Port Trust, after his retirement from the Indian Navy as Commander. The third respondent is employed as Dredging Superintendent. According to the rules the post of Dredging Superintendent, is a promotional post. The promotion is by way of selection. The feeder cadre for the post of Dredging Superintendent is senior Dredging Master having the certificate of competency as Master Foreign going with at least seven years experience. 3. The petitioner seeks the issuance of writ in the nature of quo warranto, to remove the Respondent No.3 from the post on the ground that the appointment of 3rd respondent was made by way of direct recruitment whereas the source of appointment is only by promotion. 4. The second ground of challenge, is that Respondent No.3 does not hold the qualification for the post i.e., certificate of competency as Master foreign going. 5. In support of the contention that Certificate of Service (COS) cannot be treated to be the Certificate of Competence, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naresh Kumar and Another Vs.Union of India and Others reported in wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under: “6.1. Holders of certificates of service who wish to become holders of certificates of competency complying with the requirements of STCW95, will be required to undertake some assessment before the issue of any such certificate. That assessment will make full use of the VQ system and take account of previous experience. Holders of certificates of service who wish to become holders of certificates of competency complying with the requirements of STCW95, will be required to undertake some assessment before the issue of any such certificate. That assessment will make full use of the VQ system and take account of previous experience. Certificate holders will be assessed to ascertain that their competence level matches that of the STCW 78, certificate of competency they are assumed to hold under existing equivalency arrangement (See appendices 4 and 5), or that of a lower level of their choice Additional training or updating may be required in order to comply with the STCW 95 requirement to provide evidence of training and competency regarding emergency procedures, occupational safety, medical care, survival functions and radio communications including GMDSS, appropriate to the category of certificate involved. Following satisfactory assessment and any additional retraining or updating required, Certificate of Service holders will be issued with equivalent STCW 95 certificates of competency as indicated in Appendices 2 and 3. Alternatively, Certificate of Service holders may retain their certificates and revalidate them at the due date. However, revalidation will only last until 31 January, 2002 after which date the Certificate of Service will no longer be recognised.” 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, that once it is proved that appointment of third respondent is contrary to the rules governing the service condition, therefore he cannot hold the public office and deserves to be ousted. 7. The writ petition is opposed by the respondents, by filing separate counters. The Respondents 1 and 2 explained the reason in paragraph 5, of the counter for making direct appointment of Respondent No.3, which reads as under: “5. I deny the allegations and averments made in Paragraph 6 to 10 of the Affidavit and submit that the Post of Dredging Superintendent, a Post then under the Engineering Department was to have been filled up by departmental promotion. I submit that the said post fell vacant with effect from 31.05.1996 on the retirement of Capt, B.A.Pang hat and there was no eligible person in the Chennai Port Trust on the feeder post and hence in view of the lack of qualified personnel in the Engineering Department, applications were also called for from the Marine Department of the Chennai Port Trust. I submit that at that point of time there were no personnel qualified in the Marine Department and hence no one submitted application. Therefore applications were called for from any eligible person, from any other major port in India even though no applications were received from any other major port. I submit that approval was obtained from the Chairman, Chennai Port Trust for advertising the post and after approval was obtained an advertisement was issued in all leading newspapers in April, 1997. I submit that the third respondent had applied and along with him three others and all of them were called for an interview to be held on 19.07.1997. However, only one person, Capt.Anuj Bajaj had appeared on the said date and was selected. I submit that the 3rd respondent had sent a telegram informing the port that he could not attend the interview due to the sudden death of his mother-in-law. For reasons best known to Cap. Anuj Bajaj, he did not joint duty. I submit that the third respondent was called for an interview and he attended the interview on 05.01.1998 and he was selected and appointed vide letter dated 17.02.1998. It is to be noted that more than 2 years, the post of Dredging Superintendent had been vacant as there were no eligible persons available in the Chennai Port and no other person had envisaged any interest in the said post. 8. In view of the facts stated herein above, which are not disputed, no fault can be found with the appointment of Respondent No.3 by way of direct recruitment to the post. 9. Respondent No.3 is qualified to hold the post as he has got requisite experience having worked in the Indian Navy. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Certificate of Service cannot be equated with the Certificate of Competence deserves to be noticed to be rejected, in view of the existence of Section 80 of the Marchant Shipping Act, 1958 which reads as under: “Certificates of Services of naval Officers: “80. (1) A person who has attained the rank of lieutenant in the executive branch of the Indian Navy shall be entitled to a Certificate of Service as the master of a foreign-going-ship without examination. 1. (1) A person who has attained the rank of lieutenant in the executive branch of the Indian Navy shall be entitled to a Certificate of Service as the master of a foreign-going-ship without examination. 1. A person who has attained the rank of lieutenant or sub-lieutenant in the engineering branch of the Indian Navy shall be entitled without examination, if a lieutenant to a Certificate of Service as first class engineer and if a sub-lieutenant to a Certificate of Service as first class engineer, and if a sub-lieutenant to a Certificate of Service as second class engineer. 2. The Central Government may, by rules made under this Act and subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be specified therein, provide for the grant of certificates of service to officers of the Indian Navy Reserve Forces who have attained the prescribed ranks. 3. A Certificate of Service shall differ in form from a certificate of competency and shall contain the name and rank of the person to whom it is delivered and the Central Government shall deliver a Certificate of Service to any person who proves himself to be entitled thereto. 4. Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the Central Government may, if it is of opinion that a person who is entitled to a Certificate of Service under this section is not a fit person to hold such certificate, refuse to grant or deliver such certificates to him. 5. The provisions of this Act (including the provisions relating to penalities) shall apply in relation to a Certificate of Service as they apply in relation to a certificate of competency.” 11. It is not disputed that the Section 80 stands deleted now. But at the same time, the certificate, issued under Section 80 of the Act when it was on statute book stands duly protected by notification called the standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafares, 1995 (STCW 95) which deals with the Certificate of Service (CoS) as under: "Certificate of Service (COS) – Background 1. Section 80 (since repealed) of Merchant Shipping (MS) Act 1958 entitled Indian Naval Officer of the rank of Lt in 'X' branch to be issued with a Certificate of Service (COS) of Master of Foreign Going merchant ship without any examination. Similarly, a Lieutenant in the Engineering Branch was entitled for COS of Chief Engineer of Foreign Going ships. 2. Section 80 (since repealed) of Merchant Shipping (MS) Act 1958 entitled Indian Naval Officer of the rank of Lt in 'X' branch to be issued with a Certificate of Service (COS) of Master of Foreign Going merchant ship without any examination. Similarly, a Lieutenant in the Engineering Branch was entitled for COS of Chief Engineer of Foreign Going ships. 2. This COS was equal in all respect to the Certificate of Competency (COC) which was issued to merchant marine officers after they had passed prescribed examinations. The genesis of this Section of the Act was based on the similar provisions made in the United Kingdom in keeping with the training and experience of the naval officers and strategic requirements of the nation in times of emergencies and war. 3. International Maritime Organisation (IMO) held a convention in 1978 on the Standards of Training, Certification and Watch keeping for seafares (STCW-78) which recommended many changes in the training of seafarers with the view to improving safety at sea and keep pace with changing trade requirements, ship design etc., Using STCW-78 as an alibi, DG shipping got the MS Act amended by the Government on 14 Aug 86 resulting in deletion of Section 80. While making the amendment it was clarified that the amendment would not apply to any COS granted or recognised under the principal Act before this date. The COS issued prior to this date, therefore, continued to remain valid. Many ex-naval officers eligible till date have been successfully sailing on merchant ships in various capacities on the strength of COS. Navy Limited Examination (NLE) 4. COS holders who wished to obtain COC as Master (FG) were required to pass Navy Limited Examination (NLE), consisting of Four papers, followed by an Oral Exam. In Three of the papers IN officers appeared along with merchant navy officers. Only one paper on Cargo Work and Ship Maintenance was held separately for our officers as this subject was covered for merchant marine officers in First Mate exam. The NLE was stopped with effect from end 98 because of new STCW rules." 12. The reading of Standard regulation on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner shows, that the certificate issued in favour of Respondent No.3 is to be treated as equivalent to the Certificate of Competence, being certificate issued under Section 80. 13. The NLE was stopped with effect from end 98 because of new STCW rules." 12. The reading of Standard regulation on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner shows, that the certificate issued in favour of Respondent No.3 is to be treated as equivalent to the Certificate of Competence, being certificate issued under Section 80. 13. For reasons stated herein above it cannot be said that the respondent No.3 is holding the public office in violation of any rules or regulation or that he is not having requisite qualification. 14. Consequently, finding no merit in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.