JUDGMENT : K.M. Joseph, J. 1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking a writ of quo warranto. The factual matrix, in which the question arises for consideration, briefly is as follows:- Petitioners question in this quo warranto proceeding the appointment of 5th respondent as a District Government Counsel (Revenue). The grounds, which have been taken in the writ petition, pertain to the suitability of the 5th respondent to hold the post. In short, the case of the petitioners is that the appointment of the 5th respondent is premised on his having allegedly secured hundred per cent success, which is questioned. In fact, suitability also is beyond quo warranto. Apart from the fact that a writ of quo warranto can not be successfully premised on the questionability of the decision regarding suitability of the candidate concerned, there is an insuperable obstacle, in our view, in the path of the petitioners’ succeeding. A writ of quo warranto, it is settled law, will lie only if there is, in fact, a statutory violation in the matter of the appointment of the party respondent. See, in this regard, judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, reported in B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees Assn. and others, (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II). The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraphs 57 & 59 of its judgment has held as follows:- “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, (2003) 4 SCC 712 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, (2002) 6 SCC 269 , was also relied on.” 2. In this case, we also heard the learned Deputy Advocate General. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General also submits that the appointments are made under the Legal Remembrancer Manual. The Legal Remembrancer Manual cannot be treated as statute, so as to attract the jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto in our view. 4. In this case, we also heard the learned Deputy Advocate General. 3. Learned Deputy Advocate General also submits that the appointments are made under the Legal Remembrancer Manual. The Legal Remembrancer Manual cannot be treated as statute, so as to attract the jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto in our view. 4. In such circumstances, we see no reason to entertain this petition. Therefore, we decline the jurisdiction. This judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioners pursuing their remedy before the Law Secretary, which they have already done in regard to the above. 5. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.