Judgment 1. Whether appointment of 3rd Respondent-Dr. M.A. Atmanand as Director in National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai was in violation of statutory rules and whether the learned single Judge was right in dismissing the Writ of Quo Warranto are the points falling for consideration in these intra-court appeals. 2. Background facts:- Ministry of Earth Sciences (for short “MoES”) is forecasting the monsoons and other weather/climate parameters, ocean state and other phenomena related to earth systems through well integrated programmes. MoES also deals with science and technology for exploration and exploitation of ocean resources (living and non-living). National Institute of Ocean Technology (for short “NIOT”), Chennai is one of the autonomous Institution attached to MoES. MoES is vested with the responsibility to make an appointment of Director of Institute. Appellant in W.A.No.2128 of 2011 (Dr. S. Kathiroli) was the Director of NIOT on contract basis with effect from 01.09.2004 for a period of five years. On expiry of his tenure on 31.08.2009, the Search-cum-Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of Dr. Shailesh Nayak, Secretary, MoES was constituted. For identifying suitable persons for the post of Director, requests were sent to the Heads of Departments to nominate suitable candidates in order to have a wider choice. The Search-cum-Selection Committee was formed and the Committee short listed seven candidates for personal talk/interview. The Search-cum-Selection Committee interviewed six candidates as one of the candidate viz., Dr. V.S.N. Rao Tatavarti did not appear for interview. The Committee recommended the name of 3rd Respondent-Dr. M.A. Atmanand to be appointed as Director, NIOT for a period of five years. With the approval of competent authority, 3rd Respondent was appointed as Director for a period of five years and he assumed office on 21.10.2009. 3. Appellants filed Writ of Quo Warranto contending that 3rd Respondent's appointment was against the Rules and he is occupying the post without possessing essential qualifications. It is the case of Appellants that as per the information obtained under RTI Act, there are no separate recruitment rules framed for the post of Director, NIOT and that the notified recruitment rules for MoES are applicable to its autonomous bodies also. It is averred that post of Director is equivalent to Scientist Grade “G” and therefore, Respondents 1 and 2 ought to have followed the recruitment rules. It is averred that post of Director is equivalent to Scientist Grade “G” and therefore, Respondents 1 and 2 ought to have followed the recruitment rules. For Scientist Grade “G”, the prescribed years of experience is 23 years in Teaching / Research and Development / Survey / Administration / Planning / Supervision / Training shall be in the field of Oceanography or Marine Technology and the same cannot be reduced to 20 years. 3rd Respondent obtained Doctorate degree only in the year 1997 from the Indian Institute of Technology and as such 3rd Respondent does not have 20 years of requisite qualification and he has approximately only 12 years in the field of Oceanography and Marine Technology. 3rd Respondent does not have requisite five years of minimum term as Head/Leader of an independent Technical Programme/Institution. The application of 3rd Respondent was not routed through proper channel and his appointment as Director, NIOT is in clear violation of recruitment rules and the Appellants prayed for issuance of Writ of Quo Warranto that 3rd Respondent is holding the post without fulfilling the essential qualification and experience prescribed under the recruitment rules. 4. W.P.No.9717 of 2010 has been filed by the Appellant-T. Lokachari (W.A.No.2127 of 2011) alleging that he is a retired Administrative Officer of 2nd Respondent and that the appointment of 3rd Respondent is arbitrary and illegal and that he could not have been considered for appointment as Director. 5. 1st Respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that as per the practice in vogue and with the approval of MoES, Search-cum-Selection Committee was constituted for nominating and selecting the best talent available. The qualification and experience prescribed for Director, NIOT are much more arduous than that of Scientist Grade “G”. Requests were sent to the Heads of Departments and other eminent Scientists in the field to nominate suitable candidates in order to have a wider choice. The Search-cum-Selection Committee short listed seven candidates and thereafter, interviewed six candidates. The 3rd Respondent was nominated by Dr. P.S. Goel, Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment Centre, Defence Research and Development Organisation (for short “DRDO”). The Committee found that 3rd Respondent possessed the required essential qualification for the post and recommended his name to be appointed as Director, NIOT. Approval of MoES was conveyed to the Chairman, GC of NIOT for issuing necessary orders including the terms of appointment. P.S. Goel, Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment Centre, Defence Research and Development Organisation (for short “DRDO”). The Committee found that 3rd Respondent possessed the required essential qualification for the post and recommended his name to be appointed as Director, NIOT. Approval of MoES was conveyed to the Chairman, GC of NIOT for issuing necessary orders including the terms of appointment. The appointment order was issued to 3rd Respondent with the approval of Chairman, GC and he assumed charge as Director, NIOT on 21.10.2009. Appointment by direct recruitment by the constituted authority was after following due process of law. Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli (W.A.No.2128 of 2011) having participated in the selection process, cannot be allowed to question the same. 6. The 2nd Respondent filed a counter stating that Appellants have distorted picture of the correct rules and that 3rd Respondent has requisite qualification and there is no violation of any rules in his appointment as Director, NIOT. 7. The 3rd Respondent filed a counter stating that the Petitioner being unsuccessful in the selection process is estopped from challenging the appointment of 3rd Respondent. According to 3rd Respondent, he has not applied for the post of Director in the 2nd Respondent and his name was nominated by Dr. P.S. Goel to the Search-cum-Selection Committee. The Committee after holding personal talk/interview and after satisfying the qualification and experience, recommended his name to be appointed as Director of 2nd Respondent for a period of five years. 3rd Respondent possesses a Doctorate degree and has more than 20 years of experience and has satisfied the prescribed qualification for the post of Director, NIOT. Appointment by direct recruitment by the Authority was after following due process of law and there is no illegality in his appointment. 8. Upon consideration of rival contentions, the learned single Judge held that as per the procedure in vogue, 1st Respondent invited applications through advertisement, apart from nominating persons by Search-cum-Selection Committee. The learned single Judge further held that the Expert Committee consisting of eminent persons have evaluated and assessed the experience and qualification of 3rd Respondent and found that he is a suitable person to be appointed as Director, NIOT and there is no violation of any rules to upset the selection of 3rd Respondent, who was selected by the Expert body. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ Petitions, Appellants have preferred these appeals. 9. Mr. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of Writ Petitions, Appellants have preferred these appeals. 9. Mr. Vijay Narayan, the learned Senior Counsel for Appellants interalia contended that 3rd Respondent was not having more than 23 years of experience after passing Ph.D and he was not qualified as per the recruitment rules. The 3rd Respondent having found not eligible to be promoted as Scientist Grade “G”, cannot be made as Director of NIOT. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that as per the information obtained under RTI Act, recruitment rules for the post of Scientist Grade “G” are applicable to the post of Director and while so, the learned single Judge erred in holding that there are no recruitment rules for the post of Director. It was further submitted that the action in nominating and appointing the 3rd Respondent to the post of Director without essential qualification would clearly reveal the malafide method by which he was appointed. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon AIR 1984 SC 1572 [M/S.J.MOHAPATRA AND CO. AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF ORISSA AND ANOTHER] and (2006) 9 SCC 507 [MALIK MAZHAR SULTAN AND ANOTHER v. U.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND OTHERS]. 10. On behalf of 1st Respondent, Mr. R. Thiagarajan, learned Senior Counsel contended that 3rd Respondent has been appointed by the Search-cum-Selection Committee, after issuing proper advertisement and with the approval of the competent authority and therefore, he cannot be termed as usurper of a public office. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli himself being a participant in the selection process, cannot be allowed to question the same by filing a Writ of Quo Warranto. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon AIR 1965 SC [UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE v. C.D.GOVINDA RAO] and (2006) 11 731 (II) [B.SRINIVASA REDDY v. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES' ASSN. AND OTHERS]. 11. Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, learned counsel for 2nd Respondent submitted that Rules for the post of Scientist Grade “G” is not applicable to the post of Director, NIOT and the post of Director being highly responsible, cannot be equated to a post of Scientist. Learned counsel further submitted that post of Director being highly specialised and that the Expert Committee evaluated the assessment and found 3rd Respondent suitable for the post, there is no violation of any Rules to entertain Writ of Quo Warranto. Learned counsel further submitted that post of Director being highly specialised and that the Expert Committee evaluated the assessment and found 3rd Respondent suitable for the post, there is no violation of any Rules to entertain Writ of Quo Warranto. Learned counsel further submitted that Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli himself was a participant in the selection process and an unsuccessful candidate, there is lack of bonafide in the Writ Petitions. 12. Mr. Karthik, learned counsel for 3rd Respondent submitted that the Search-cum-Selection Committee is a high powered one comprising of eminent academicians and Scientists and the Committee after holding personal talk/interview, recommended the name of 3rd Respondent to be appointed as the Director of NIOT and as such there is no illegality in his appointment. Learned counsel further submitted that the 3rd Respondent was in possession of required essential qualification and that he was nominated by Dr. P.S. Goel, Chairman, Recruitment and Assessment Centre and therefore, question of forwarding the application through proper channel does not arise. 13. Writ of Quo Warranto – can be issued only when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules:- A Writ of Quo Warranto is a writ which lies against the person, who according to the relator is not entitled to hold an office of public nature and is only a usurper of the office. It is the person, against whom the writ of quo warranto is directed, who is required to show, by what authority he is entitled to hold the office. The challenge can be made on various grounds, including the grounds that the possessor of the office does not fulfil the required qualifications or suffers from any disqualification, which debars him to hold such office. (Vide B.R. Kapur v. State of T.N., (2001) 7 SCC 231 , at page 316) 14. Before we consider the merits of the contentions, we may briefly refer to the nature of Writ of Quo Warranto. Writ of Quo Warranto cannot be issued, unless there is clear violation of law. Writ of Quo Warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commr. & Secy. to Govt. of Haryana (2002) 6 SCC 269 ) and (High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat (2003) 4 SCC 712). 15. Writ of Quo Warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. (Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commr. & Secy. to Govt. of Haryana (2002) 6 SCC 269 ) and (High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat (2003) 4 SCC 712). 15. In AIR 1965 SC 491 [UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE v. C.D.GOVINDA RAO], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “6. .... As Halsbury has observed: “An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the place of the obsolate writ of quo warranto which lay against a person who claimed or usurped an office, franchise, or liberty, to enquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order that the right to the office or franchise might be determined.” 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. In other 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 offices 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 conditions recognised in that behalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office; 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 that before a citizen can claim 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.” 16. 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. (Vide B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Association, (2006) 11 SCC 731 (I)) 17. The only question to be considered is whether the appointment of 3rd Respondent is contrary to the statutory rules. A Writ of Quo Warranto does not lie, if the alleged violation is not of statutory in nature. 18. Position of Director, NIOT: - The main vision of NIOT is to develop world class technologies and applications for sustainable utilization of ocean resources, to provide competitive, value added technical services and solutions to organisations working in the oceans and to develop a knowledge base and institutional capabilities in India for management of ocean resources and environment. NIOT was registered as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 on 5th November 1993 with the Registration No.541/1993. 19. Director of NIOT is a highly responsible position with independent charge of the Institution, Administration, Leadership qualities and also a technocrat and decision maker. The post of Director does not have a special recruitment rule. Government is free to decide the mode of recruitment and constitution of Committee at any given time. As per rule 17 of Staff Service Rules of NIOT, Director of NIOT shall be appointed by the Governing Council with the approval of Government i.e. Department of Ocean Development. MoES is vested with the responsibility to make appointment of Director of Institution. The practice is to advertise the vacancy in employment news and leading national dailies inviting applications to the post of Director, NIOT. MoES is vested with the responsibility to make appointment of Director of Institution. The practice is to advertise the vacancy in employment news and leading national dailies inviting applications to the post of Director, NIOT. The Search-cum-Selection Committee is constituted and requests were sent to Heads of Scientific Ministries and Departments and other eminent Scientists in the field to nominate suitable candidates in order to have a wider choice. Earlier in 2004, in which Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli was appointed as Director, NIOT, the same method was followed by advertising the vacancy in employment news and other leading daily newspapers and by constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committee. 20. Whether there is violation of any statutory provision in the appointment of 3rd Respondent for the post of Director of NIOT – 2009:- Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli was the Director of NIOT on contract basis with effect from 01.09.2004 for a period of five years. His tenure expired on 31.08.2009. Process was initiated for identifying and selecting suitable candidate for the post of Director. Advertisement was published in the employment news and daily newspapers in May 2009 inviting applications for the post of Director of NIOT. As per the notification contained in Page 78 of the typed set of papers, the following are the essential and desirable qualification and experience:- “2. Qualification & Experience: Essential:-Doctorate in Science/Engineering/Technology, with over 20 years experience in teaching, research & technology development, with a minimum 5 years term as Head/Leader of an important technical/scientific programme or institution. Desirable:- Experience in formulating and implementing multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional programmes preferably in the ocean and marine sciences/technology involving active interaction/participation with industries is desirable. Experience in the formulations and management of international collaborative ventures is also desirable.” 21. Case of Appellants is that as per the information obtained under RTI Act, there are no separate recruitment rules framed for the post of Director, NIOT and that the recruitment rules for MoES are applicable to its autonomous bodies. Experience in the formulations and management of international collaborative ventures is also desirable.” 21. Case of Appellants is that as per the information obtained under RTI Act, there are no separate recruitment rules framed for the post of Director, NIOT and that the recruitment rules for MoES are applicable to its autonomous bodies. Further case of Appellants is that as per recruitment rules, for Scientist Grade “G”, the following are the essential and desirable qualification and the same is applicable to the post of Director:- “Essential: i. Master's degree in Physics or Chemistry or Geophysics or Geochemistry or Zoology or Biology or Geology or Fisheries or Oceanography with at least first class (60%) at graduation or post graduation level or Bachelor's degree in Engineering or Technology from a recognised University or equivalent. ii. 23 years' experience in teaching (at graduate or post graduate level), research and development, survey, administration, planning, supervision or training in the field of Oceanography or Marine Technology Desirable: i. Master's degree in Engineering or Technology or Doctorate in any branch of science related to Oceanography from recognised University or equivalent. ii. Experience in policy making, planning or management related to oceanic activities or management of projects in the field of Oceanography. Note 1: The exact educational qualifications and areas of experience according to the requirement of the post, shall be specified at the time of recruitment. Note 2: The qualification regarding experience is relaxable at the discretion of the Secretary, Department of Ocean Development in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Note 3: Doctorate degree will count as 3 years experience. 22. Re-contention that 3rd Respondent does not have required 20 years of Doctorate qualification :- Contention of Appellants is that essential qualification and experience of 23 years in teaching, research and development, survey, administration, planning supervision or training in the field of Oceanography or Marine Technology is prescribed in the recruitment rules and while so, in the advertisement, the rules have been flouted and reduced to 20 years of experience and the relevant experience in the field of Oceanography and Marine Technology has been removed and there has been dilution of recruitment rules. As pointed out earlier, there are no service rules for appointment to the post of Director, NIOT. The Director, NIOT being a post of higher responsibility cannot be equated to a Scientist Grade “G”. 23. As pointed out earlier, there are no service rules for appointment to the post of Director, NIOT. The Director, NIOT being a post of higher responsibility cannot be equated to a Scientist Grade “G”. 23. There is no force in the contention that there had been dilution of Rules and that the rigour of standard has been undermined. By a comparative chart of essential and desirable qualification of Director, NIOT and Scientist Grade “G”, it was pointed out that a very high standard of academic accomplishments and capacity to lead technical programmes and research was insisted upon. We may usefully refer to the comparative chart as stated in the counter filed by the 1st Respondent which reads as follows:- By a perusal of the comparative chart, it is seen that Doctorate degree being an essential requirement, the Director post demanded higher levels of achievement for eligibility by insisting for five years as Head/Leader of the Institution and capacity to oversee and lead technical programmes and research. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was dilution of essential qualifications. 24. As pointed out earlier, Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli was appointed as Director, NIOT on contract basis with effect from 01.09.2004. In 2004 also, advertisement was issued inviting applications to the post of Director. In the said advertisement issued in 2004, the qualification and experience insisted for Director is one and the same as that of essential and desirable qualification in 2009. On a perusal of the advertisement issued in 2004 for recruitment to the post of Director, NIOT, it is seen that the said advertisement is verbatim the same as that of the advertisement in 2009. In pursuance to the selection and pursuant to the advertisement in 2004, Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli was appointed and he occupied post for five years. In 2004, a similar advertisement was issued with the very same essential and desirable qualifications and Appellant-Dr. S. Kathiroli himself participated and appointed as Director, he cannot turn round later and contend that there has been dilution of Rules and required qualifications. 25. Kathiroli was appointed and he occupied post for five years. In 2004, a similar advertisement was issued with the very same essential and desirable qualifications and Appellant-Dr. S. Kathiroli himself participated and appointed as Director, he cannot turn round later and contend that there has been dilution of Rules and required qualifications. 25. Whether 3rd Respondent did not possess the required qualifications:– Contention of Appellants is that 3rd Respondent obtained Doctorate degree only in the year 1997 from Indian Institute of Technology and as per Rule 10 of Chapter 14 of Staff Service Rules of NIOT, the period of experience shall be counted after the date of acquiring the minimum prescribed educational qualification for that Group/Grade. Rule 10 of Chapter 14 of Staff Service Rules of NIOT reads as follows:- “Rule 10 CUT OFF DATE FOR AGE, QUALIFICATIONS/EXPERIENCE: Last date for receipt for applications will be the cut off date for determining the age, qualifications and experience of a candidate. The period of experience in a discipline/area of work, wherever prescribed, shall be counted after the date of acquiring the minimum prescribed educational qualifications for that Group/Grade. Research done after acquiring minimum prescribed qualifications regardless of whether done for a higher degree or not would be counted as work experience.” The above contention does not merit acceptance. As pointed out earlier, Staff Service Rules of NIOT do not apply to the post of Director, NIOT. 26. We may point out yet another aspect to substantiate that Staff Service Rules of NIOT in particular, Rule 10 of Chapter 14 is not applicable for appointment of Director, NIOT. Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli obtained Ph.D in 1988 and in 2004 he applied for the post of Director, NIOT. If Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli's experience is to be counted after he obtained Ph.D (1988), in 2004 at the time of applying, he had only 16 years of experience after obtaining Ph.D which means that he did not possess the requisite 20 years of experience. The fact that in 2004, Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli was appointed as Director would indicate that 20 years experience was taken into account notwithstanding the time in which Doctorate was obtained. 27. The fact that in 2004, Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli was appointed as Director would indicate that 20 years experience was taken into account notwithstanding the time in which Doctorate was obtained. 27. Re-contention that 3rd Respondent does not have requisite qualification:- Contention of Appellants is that 3rd Respondent lacks necessary qualifications – i. 3rd Respondent was only in “F” Grade Scientist and his promotion to Scientist Grade “G” was not considered in June-July 2009 and therefore, he is not even eligible for consideration for the post of Director, NIOT. ii. 3rd Respondent did not have requisite five years minimum term as head/leader of independent technical programme/institution as he was promoted to Scientist Grade “F” only in the year 2005. 28. Refuting the contention, learned counsel for Respondents submitted that 3rd Respondent was in possession of required essential qualification for the said post. Learned counsel for 3rd Respondent has drawn our attention to the bio-data particulars of 3rd Respondent contained in Page 95 of typed set of papers. As per the Resume, 3rd Respondent has the following qualifications:- Qualifications: Ph. D (Electrical Engineering), 1997 (IIT Madras) M. Tech. (Electrical Engineering), 1985(IIT Madras–GPA–9.1) B. Tech. (Electrical and Electronics Engineering),1983 (University of Calicut – 87% Univ. 2nd Rank Holder) Pre-degree examination, 1978, University of Calicut 76.4% Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC), Board of Public Examinations, Kerala State, 1976, 62.1% Experience:(24 years) 1. Project Director (Scientist F) from June 2005 till date at National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai (NIOT). Heading the Deep-sea Technology and Ocean Mining Group. Involved in development of technology towards mining of polymetallic nodules. Holding additional charge as Head, Marine Sensors & Electronics Division of NIOT. Involved in indigenisation and development of sophisticated underwater marine electronic equipment. Scale : Rs.PB4 – Rs.37400 – 67000 + Grade pay 8900 2. Joint Project Director (Scientist E) Heading Deep-sea Technology and Ocean mining group of NIOT from September 2000 till June 2005. Also involved in other technology demonstration projects. 3. Sr. Project Manager (Scientist D) from March 1997 to September 2000 Incharge of Electrical and Electronics Division of Deep-sea Technology and Ocean mining group NIOT from March 1997 till September 2000. 4. Senior Research Engineer (Scientist C) at Fluid Control Research Institute (FCRI), Palghat (Ministry of Heavy Industry, Govt. of India) from September 1989 to March 1997. 5. Engineer (Scientist B) at Fluid Control Research Institute, Palghat, Ministry of Heavy Industries, Govt. 4. Senior Research Engineer (Scientist C) at Fluid Control Research Institute (FCRI), Palghat (Ministry of Heavy Industry, Govt. of India) from September 1989 to March 1997. 5. Engineer (Scientist B) at Fluid Control Research Institute, Palghat, Ministry of Heavy Industries, Govt. of India, from February 1985 to September 1989.” 29. The Search-cum-Selection Committee is a high powered one comprising of eminent academicians and Scientists. The Committee after examining the qualification and experience of 3rd Respondent, recommended his name to be appointed as Director of NIOT. When the Expert Committee consisting of eminent persons have evaluated the qualification and experience of 3rd Respondent and found that he is a suitable person to be appointed as Director, Court cannot sit in judgment over the collective decision taken by the Expert Committee in the choice of appointment of 3rd Respondent as Director, NIOT. 30. Observing that Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of the person to be appointed so long as the person chosen possesses the prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment, in (2006) 11 SCC 731 (2) [B.SRINIVASA REDDY v. KARNATAKA URBAN WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “51. It is settled law by a catena of decisions that the court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of the person to be appointed so long as the person chosen possesses the prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment. This Court in R.K. Jain v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 119 was pleased to hold that the evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates would not be gone into a public interest litigation and only in a proceeding initiated by an aggrieved person, may it be open to be considered. It was also held that in service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person, that is, the non-appointee to assail the legality or correctness of the action and that a third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action . .....” 31.Constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committee:- Search-cum-Selection Committee was constituted with the following experts:- 1. Shailesh Nayak, Chair 2. Prof. Ravindran, Former Director, NIOT 3. Prof. Anant, Director, IIT in Chennai 4. Dr. P.S. Goel, Chair RAB/DRDO 5. Dr. .....” 31.Constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committee:- Search-cum-Selection Committee was constituted with the following experts:- 1. Shailesh Nayak, Chair 2. Prof. Ravindran, Former Director, NIOT 3. Prof. Anant, Director, IIT in Chennai 4. Dr. P.S. Goel, Chair RAB/DRDO 5. Dr. Harsh Gupta, Raja Rammorna Fellow, NERI 32. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellants submitted that Search-cum-Selection Committee has not been constituted with the concurrence of Department of Personnel and Training (for short “DoPT”) and that after constitution, there was a change in the constitution of the Committee by nominating Prof. S.K. Dubey instead of Prof. M.S. Ananth. 33. Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli himself having participated in the selection process is estopped from raising objection regarding constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committee or change of a Member of the Committee. 34. Learned counsel for 2nd Respondent has produced additional typed set of papers containing the communication regarding the nomination of the Members of the Committee and informing them about their nomination as Members of the Committee. In the letter sent by the Secretary, MoES dated 21.04.2009, the Secretary stated that “Committee has been constituted under the Chairmanship of Secretary for selection of candidate for the post of Director and requesting the nominated member also to suggest names of suitable persons for the job for consideration of the Committee”. In response to the communication sent by the Secretary, MoES dated 21.04.2009, Prof. M.S. Ananth sent his reply dated 08.5.2009 accepting the nomination and expressing his willingness to serve as a Member of the Committee. 35. Learned counsel for Respondents submitted that Prof. M.S. Ananth, Director, Indian Institute of Technology Madras could not participate in the selection process because of serious illness of his wife and therefore, Prof. S.K. Dube, Former Director, IIT Khargpur was appointed in his place. MoES sent a communication dated 27.7.2009 to Prof. S.K. Dube informing him that meeting of Search-cum-Selection Committee scheduled to be held on 01.8.2009 and requesting him to make it convenient to attend the meeting. It was in those circumstances, Prof. S.K. Dube's name came to be substituted in the place of Prof. M.S. Ananth. When Prof. S.K. Dube was nominated as Member with the approval of MoES, there could be no valid objection for such nomination in the place of Prof. M.S.Ananth. As per the practice in vogue, the Committee was constituted with the approval of MoES. S.K. Dube's name came to be substituted in the place of Prof. M.S. Ananth. When Prof. S.K. Dube was nominated as Member with the approval of MoES, there could be no valid objection for such nomination in the place of Prof. M.S.Ananth. As per the practice in vogue, the Committee was constituted with the approval of MoES. It is pertinent to note that absolutely, there are no averments raising objection in the Writ Petitions as to the constitution of Search-cum-Selection Committee. 36. Nomination of 3rd Respondent by one of the Member of the Committee and the alleged malafide in the appointment of 3rd Respondent:- 3rd Respondent was nominated by Dr. P.S. Goel and Prof. M. Ravindran, Former Director, NIOT. Learned Senior Counsel for Appellants submitted that advertisement calling for applications to the post of Director, NIOT had a good response and as many as eight applications were received and there was no necessity to nominate any person and while so, the action of the Search-cum-Selection Committee itself nominating the 3rd Respondent was in violation of the provisions and also the recruitment rules stated in the Official Memorandum dated 30.07.2007 issued by DoPT. By perusal of the typed set of papers and consideration of the procedure, it is seen that nomination is not something unusual for appointment of Director, NIOT. It is a matter of record that in 2009, the Selection Committee nominated not only 3rd Respondent, but also the Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli and Prof. D. Sen, who have earlier sent their applications in response to the advertisement. Like wise, Prof. M.S. Ananth nominated the applicant Prof. Sundaravadivelu. Nomination of persons for selection by the Search-cum-Selection Committee is the procedure in vogue as in the year 2000, the Director post was filled only by nomination. In the year 2004, eight persons were considered of which three persons were nominated. Therefore, there seems to be nothing unusual about nomination of candidates by the members of Search-cum-Selection Committee for selection. In the present appointment also, applications were invited through advertisement apart from nomination from Heads of Scientific Departments and also from eminent Scientists in the field to nominate suitable candidates in order to have a wider choice. When Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli himself was nominated by Dr. P.S. Goel, he cannot raise a plea of illegality in the nomination of 3rd Respondent by a member of Committee. 37. When Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli himself was nominated by Dr. P.S. Goel, he cannot raise a plea of illegality in the nomination of 3rd Respondent by a member of Committee. 37. Insofar as the contention alleging malafides is concerned, no averments are made in the Writ Petitions to substantiate those allegation. Considering the question whether the appointment made by the Government is vitiated by malafides, in (1974) 4 SCC 3 [E.P.ROYAPPA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “89. .... The burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a higher order of credibility. ....” 38. As pointed out earlier, when the Expert Committee consisting of eminent persons have assessed the qualification and experience of all the participants and found that 3rd Respondent is the most suitable person to be appointed as Director of NIOT, there is no basis for the allegation of malafides to upset the selection. 39.Writ of Quo Warranto: - Appellant-Dr. Kathiroli himself was a participant and unsuccessful in the selection process. Learned counsel for 3rd Respondent submitted that the Writ Petitions are filed not in public interest, but for personal benefit. 40. Observing that only a person who comes to the Court with bonafides and public interest can have locus, in (2004) 3 SCC 363 [B.SINGH (Dr.) v. UNION OF INDIA], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- “14. The court has to be satisfied about : (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. In such case, however, the court cannot afford to be liberal. It has to be extremely careful to see that under the guise of redressing a public grievance, it does not encroach upon the sphere reserved by the Constitution to the executive and the legislature. The court has to act ruthiessly while dealing with imposters and busybodies or meddlesome interiopers impersonating as public-spirited holy men. They masquerade as crusaders of justice. They pretend to act in the name of pro bono publico, though they have no interest of the public or even of their own to protect.” 41. In (1993) 4 SCC 119 (R.K. Jain v. Union of India), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that “...... in service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person, that is, the non-appointee to assail the legality or correctness of the action and that a third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action. ...” 42. Appellants have not made out a case that the appointment of 3rd Respondent was in contravention of the statutory provisions so as to issue a Writ of Quo Warranto against the 3rd Respondent. Learned single Judge has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition. We do not find any reason warranting our interference with the order of the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeals are therefore liable to be dismissed. 43. In the result, the Writ Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.