JUDGMENT : RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard Sri Amit Bose, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Dr. V.K. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amit Dwivedi, Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi and Sri Prashant Puri, Advocates for the opposite parties. 2. By means of this petition the petitioner has prayed that a writ in the nature of quo-warranto be issued directing the opposite party no. 3 to show the authority of law under which he occupied the post of Associate Professor and Professor in the King George's Medical University, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as KGMU in short) thereby declaring his appointment on the post of Associate Professor and Professor to be illegal and void abinitio. The petitioner has also prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued restraining the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 from allowing the opposite party no. 3 to occupy the post of Associate Professor and Professor in KGMU and also restraining the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 from conferring any financial or other advantage to the opposite party no. 3 on the basis of his promotion as Associate Professor and Professor. 3. Since the learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit raising objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition, therefore, such preliminary objections are being dealt first before adverting to the merits of the issue. 4. Brief facts, for the purposes of deciding the issue of maintainability of the writ petition are that the KGMU was constituted in the year 2002, then known as Chhatrapati Sahuji Mahraj Medical University, Lucknow before it became University in the year 2002, the said institution was affiliated college of the University of Lucknow and was governed by the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and the First Statute of the University at Lucknow, 1976 and the Rules and Regulations framed therein by the State Government from time to time. The Chhatrapati Sahuji Mahraj Medical University First Statute, 2001 was notified in June, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as First Statute in short). 5. It is undisputed fact that opposite party no. 3 i.e. Dr. Madan Lal Brahm Bhatt is presently discharging duties and responsibility for the post of Vice Chancellor, KGMU. 6. The Chhatrapati Sahuji Mahraj Medical University First Statute, 2001 was notified in June, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as First Statute in short). 5. It is undisputed fact that opposite party no. 3 i.e. Dr. Madan Lal Brahm Bhatt is presently discharging duties and responsibility for the post of Vice Chancellor, KGMU. 6. The bare perusal of the averments of writ petition, grounds of writ petition and the prayers of writ petition makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner has not challenged the present posting of the opposite party no. 3 as no prayer of quo-warranto to that effect has been made in the writ petition. It has also been informed by the learned counsel for the KGMU that the opposite party no. 3 was appointed on the post of Vice Chancellor in the month of April, 2017 for three years. The said period would be expiring in the month of April, 2020. There is no challenge of the present posting to the opposite party no. 3 in the writ petition and admittedly the petitioner has sought issuance of writ in the nature of quo warranto against opposite party no. 3 to show the authority of law under which he had occupied the post of Associate Professor and Professor in the KGMU. There is no dispute on the point that any person may be appointed as Vice Chancellor who is eminent person of the country or abroad having sufficient administrative experience, meaning thereby it is not the case of the petitioner that because of being a Professor of KGMU he has been appointed on the post of Vice Chancellor. As a matter of fact there is no nexus of two posts / post i.e. Professor and Vice Chancellor. As per the petitioner himself the petitioner became Assistant Professor on 27.4.2002, Associate Professor on 2.12.2003 and Professor on 8.12.2004. However, he became Vice Chancellor in the month of March, 2017. 7. The obvious question cropped up in the mind of the Court as to why no challenge was made in the year 2003 when the opposite party no. 3 became Associate Professor and in the year 2004 when he became Professor. Not only the above the aforesaid position of the opposite party no. 3 has not been assailed by the petitioner till filing of this writ petition when admittedly the opposite party no. 3 became Associate Professor and in the year 2004 when he became Professor. Not only the above the aforesaid position of the opposite party no. 3 has not been assailed by the petitioner till filing of this writ petition when admittedly the opposite party no. 3 is discharging the duties and liabilities of Vice Chancellor of KGMU w.e.f. 14.4.2017. The said anxiety compels the Court to go into the detail of the petitioner as to why he has filed this writ petition in the year 2019, what is his status, what are the source of information of the petitioner regarding opposite party no. 3 and what may be the purpose in filing this writ petition after more than 15 years from the time when the opposite party no. 3 was actually holding the post of Associate Professor and Professor. 8. The petitioner has himself given a specific recital in para 45 of the writ petition that one writ petition bearing Service Single No. 16635 of 2019 was filed before this Court questioning the correctness of appointment and promotion of opposite party no. 3 and the same was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition on 31.5.2019. However, it appears that the petitioner has not properly described such fact inasmuch as that the writ petition was filed by one Professor- Ashish Wakhlu of KGMU and the said writ petition was argued at some length and thereafter the request was made to withdraw the writ petition to file a fresh writ petition. For the convenience the complete detail of aforesaid writ petition along with order dated 31.5.2019 is being reproduced herein below: "Court No. - 20 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 16635 of 2019 Petitioner :- Prof Ashish Wakhlu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Medical Edu. Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. V.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav N Trivedi Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J. Heard Sri Amit Bose, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Dr. V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Sri Amit Bose, after arguing at some length, prays that the present petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. V.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav N. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. Sri Amit Bose, after arguing at some length, prays that the present petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. As such, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. Order Date :- 31.5.2019 Rakesh " 9. The perusal of aforesaid order dated 31.5.2019 clearly reveals that the said writ petition was dismissed being not pressed after substantial arguments being advanced seeking liberty to file a fresh writ petition but the present writ petition has not been filed by Professor Ashish Wakhlu to whom the liberty was given by this Court. Professor Ashish Wakhlu might be an aggrieved person or might have some interest clash with the opposite party no. 3 and he must have been knowing all relevant facts and circumstances of the present issue regarding the appointment of opposite party no. 3 and he must have been knowing all relevant facts and circumstance of the present issue regarding the appointment of opposite party no. 3 on the post of Associate Professor and Professor in the KGMU but this Court is unable to comprehend as to how the present petitioner whose profession is social service could know the finer aspects and circumstances of the present issue in question and if he was aware about the circumstances on the basis of records as indicated in para 3 of the affidavit in support of writ petition then as to why he did not file any petition earlier. In view of the aforesaid facts this Court should look into the hidden motive, if any of the petitioner for filing present writ petition. 10. This is a trite law that the doctrine of delay and laches are not applied if the writ of quo-warranto has been prayed and the writ of quo-warranto may be prayed if any person is holding an independent substantive public office without having any legal authority to that effect. In other words the Constitutional Courts are to see that a public office is not held by usurper without any legal authority. In other words the Constitutional Courts are to see that a public office is not held by usurper without any legal authority. It is also trite that the concept of locus-standi does not play role if a writ of quo-warranto is prayed but at least the contention of the petitioner should be bonafide inasmuch as it should not appear that a writ petition seeking a prayer of quo-warranto has been filed at the behest of someone else who must be having his / her grievance against a person who is said to have held the public office. It is true that the writ court does not question the locus-standi of the petitioner but the eyes cannot be closed in examining the bonafide of the petitioner. 11. By means of this petition the appointment of opposite party no. 3 on the basis of Associate Professor and Professor has been impeached. If the appointment / promotion of the opposite party no. 3 on the post of Associate Professor and Professor was illegal at that point of time, the writ in the nature of certiorari may be invoked by the aggrieved person but such relief may not be granted in the garb of writ of quo-warranto by a busybody. A writ of quo-warranto may not be a substitute of writ of certiorari. It is trite law that the writ of quo-warranto may be refused where it is an outcome of malice or ill-will. It is also trite law that only a person who comes to the Court with bonafides and public interest can have locus. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide para 53 and 54 in re: Retd. Armed Forces Medical Association and others vs. Union of India and others, has observed as under : "53. This Court in A.N. Shashtri v. State of Punjab held that the writ of quo warranto should be refused where it is an outcome of malice or ill will. The High Court failed to appreciate that on 18-1-2003 the appellant filed a criminal complaint against the second respondent Halakatte, that cognizance was taken by the criminal court in CC No. 4152 of 2003 by the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 24-2-2003, process was issued to the second respondent who was enlarged on bail on 12-6-2003 and the trial is in progress. The High Court failed to appreciate that on 18-1-2003 the appellant filed a criminal complaint against the second respondent Halakatte, that cognizance was taken by the criminal court in CC No. 4152 of 2003 by the Jurisdictional Magistrate on 24-2-2003, process was issued to the second respondent who was enlarged on bail on 12-6-2003 and the trial is in progress. That apart, the second respondent has made successive complaints to the Lokayukta against the appellant which were all held to be baseless and false. This factual background which was not disputed coupled with the fact that the second respondent Halakatte initiated the writ petition as President of the 1st respondent Union, which had ceased to be a registered trade union as early as on 2-11-1992 suppressing the material fact of its registration having been cancelled, making allegations against the appellant which were no more than the contents of the complaints filed by him before the authorities which had been found to be false after thorough investigation by the Karnataka Lokayukta, would unmistakably establish that the writ petition initiated by Respondents 1 and 2 lacked in bona fides and it was the outcome of the malice and ill will the 2nd respondent nurses against the appellant. Having regard to this aspect of the matter, the High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on that ground alone and at any event should have refused to issue a quo warranto, which is purely discretionary. It is no doubt true that the strict rules of locus standi are relaxed to an extent in a quo warranto proceedings. Nonetheless an imposter coming before the Court invoking public law remedy at the hands of a constitutional court suppressing material facts has to be dealt with firmly. 54. This Court in B. Singh (Dr.) v. Union of India held that only a person who comes to the Court with bona fides and public interest can have locus. Coming down heavily on busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, this Court at para 14 of the Report held as under : "14. Coming down heavily on busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, this Court at para 14 of the Report 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; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike 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. The Court has to act ruthlessly while dealing with imposters and busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers 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." Considering the aforesaid dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court it appears that the present petition has been filed by one busybody who is having no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of himself or as a proxy of others for any extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party no. 3 was appointed as Assistant Professor in the KGMU on 27.4.2002 on temporary post, thereafter got promotion on the post of Associate Professor on 2.12.2003 and on the post of Professor on 8.12.2004 contrary to the Acts, Statutes, Regulations prevalent in the University. As per Sri Bose opposite party no. 3 was working as Lecturer in the Department of Radiotherapy in Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Aligarh when he applied for the post of Assistant Professor (temporary) of the KGMC as then it was. Pursuant to aforesaid application the opposite party no. As per Sri Bose opposite party no. 3 was working as Lecturer in the Department of Radiotherapy in Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Aligarh when he applied for the post of Assistant Professor (temporary) of the KGMC as then it was. Pursuant to aforesaid application the opposite party no. 3 was appointed on the post of lecturer (temporary) in the year 1996 and thereafter on the post of Assistant Professor on 27.4.2002, Associate Professor on 2.12.2003 and Professor on 8.12.2004. The submission of Mr. Bose is that the teaching experience of opposite party no. 3 had been counted towards promotion for Assistant Professor or Professor contrary to the Acts, Rules, Regulations and Statutes under which the University functions inasmuch as the same teaching experience was counted for promotion to the post of Associate Professor and Professor even though entire duration of prior service (six years) was not sufficient to count for promotion to the post of Professor which was required as nine years. As per Sri Bose the promotion to the post of Associate Professor was during the period of probation when the opposite party no. 3 was not confirmed. 13. Sri Bose, learned Senior Advocate has referred various judgments of Honb'le Apex Court in respect of scope of the writ of quo-warranto. Sri Bose has referred various provisions of Acts, Regulations and Statutes to strengthen his argument which has been controverted by Sri Anil Tewari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Abhinav Trivedi, learned counsel for the KGMU. 14. However, Sri Anil Tewari, learned Senior Advocate has also referred more or less the same judgment by submitting that while issuing the writ of quo-warranto the writ court must ascertain as to whether the person concerned has held the public office without having any legal authority and it is to be ascertained first as to whether the office in question is a public office or not and if it is a public office then as to whether the person has usurped such office without any legal authority. 15. Sri Anil Tewari, learned Senior Advocate has contended with vehemence that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner has not challenged the present authority of opposite party no. 3 which is Vice Chancellor of KGMU, the post which opposite party no. 3 is presently holding. 15. Sri Anil Tewari, learned Senior Advocate has contended with vehemence that the writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioner has not challenged the present authority of opposite party no. 3 which is Vice Chancellor of KGMU, the post which opposite party no. 3 is presently holding. Sri Tiwari has submitted that the petitioner has himself stated in the writ petition that the actual entitlement of opposite party no. 3 was for salary and allowances of the Associate Professor and while claiming relief the petitioner has contended that the opposite party no. 3 is in-fact not occupying the post of Professor or Associate Professor rather he occupied those posts. As per Sri Tewari it is an admitted fact by the petitioner himself that the opposite party no. 3 is not presently occupying the post of Associate Professor and Professor. Sri Tewari has submitted with vehemence that there may not be any doubt to the fact that the office of Vice Chancellor is a whole time office and a Vice Chancellor is a whole time salaried officer of the University so he cannot discharge any other function at the same time and the document so enclosed by the petitioner regarding examination of Outdoor Patients by the opposite party no. 3 is of no avail. 16. Sri Tewari has asserted that by means of a writ of quo-warranto the authority of a person may be challenged, if he has usurped in public office without any legal authority. 17. The petitioner has questioned the authority of opposite party no. 3 when he occupied the office of Associate Professor and Professor, therefore, the very fact as to whether those posts come within the purview of 'public office'. Sri Tewari has referred the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & drainage Board Employees Assn, 2006 11 SCC 731 and Sashi Bhusan Ray v. Pramatha Nath Bandopadhyay, 1966 SCC Online Cal 153 Sri Tewari has submitted that the essential elements to establish 'public position' as 'public office' are that the post must be created by Constitution, Legislature or authority conferred by the Legislature. Further, portion of sovereign power of government must be delegated to such position. Duties and powers must be defined strictly or impliedly. Duties must be performed independently without control of superior power other than law. Further, portion of sovereign power of government must be delegated to such position. Duties and powers must be defined strictly or impliedly. Duties must be performed independently without control of superior power other than law. Lastly, position must have some permanency and continuity. On the basis of aforesaid touchstone the office of Associate Professor and Professor may not be said as 'public office' and if the office in question is not a 'public office' a writ of quo-warranto may not be issued as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: University of Mysore vs. C.D. Govinda Rao, 1965 AIR(SC) 491. 18. Since this Court is examining the maintainability of the writ petition, therefore, there is no need to go into the merits of the issue. There is no doubt that the petitioner has challenged the authority of opposite party no. 3 which he had occupied, not presently occupying and law is settled that if the person is occupying any 'public post' without having legal authority to that effect, the same may be assailed by filing writ in the nature of quo-warranto, therefore, the present writ is not maintainable. Further, there is no nexus with the post of Professor and Vice Chancellor inasmuch as it is not a case that because of being a Professor of KGMU the opposite party no. 3 was appointed as Vice Chancellor which is a whole-time office. Therefore, a challenge against the post of Professor after about more than 15 years appears to be unreasonable and uncalled for, more particularly, in view of the fact that the said challenge has been made by one busybody who has filed almost verbatim the same writ petition which was filed by one Professor Ashish Wakhlu of the KGMU and the same was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition and admittedly Professor Ashish Wakhlu has not filed a subsequent petition. Therefore, this fact also creates some doubt in the mind of the Court to the effect as to whether this writ petition is a proxy petition for any extraneous motivation and consideration or any glare of publicity. 19. Therefore, this fact also creates some doubt in the mind of the Court to the effect as to whether this writ petition is a proxy petition for any extraneous motivation and consideration or any glare of publicity. 19. Sri Amit Bose, learned Senior Advocate, has referred as many as nine judgments to convince the Court that a writ of quo-warranto may be issued in the given circumstances but a careful scrutiny of those judgments makes it abundantly clear that in the given circumstances and also in view of the facts and circumstances of the issue in question these cases are not applicable. This is a settled law of the Hon'ble Apex Court that particular case has got its own merit and unless the cases of Hon'ble Courts referred do not apply in toto, no inference may be drawn in favour of that particular case. The citation of those cases referred by Sri Bose are as follows: "1.University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao, 1965 AIR(SC) 491 (para 6) 2. : State of Haryana vs. Haryana Cooperative Transport Ltd, 1977 1 SCC 271 .(para10) 3. High Court of Gujarat Vs. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat, 2003 4 SCC 712 (Paras 22 and 23) 4. B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Assn, 2006 11 SCC 731 (Paras 43, 49 & 60) 5. N. Kannadasan Vs. Ajoy Khose, 2009 7 SCC 1 (para 109, 129 to 139), 6. Hari Bansh Lal vs. Sahodar Prasad Mahto, (2010) 9 SCC 655 : (paras 16 to 19), 7. Center for P.I.L. vs. Union of India, (2011) 4 SCC 1 : ( paras 50 and 51), 8. Rajesh Awasthi vs. Nand Lal Jaiswal, (2013) 1 SCC 501 : ( para 19), 9. Central Electricity Supply Utility of Orissa vs. Dhobei Sahoo (2014) 1 SCC 161 : (paras 18 to 22), 20. Sri Bose has also referred various judgments of Hon'ble Courts to contend that imparting education being a public and sovereign function whosoever is member of any institution imparting education would be considered is holding public office and, therefore, the writ of quo-warranto can be issued and in the present petition since the petitioner has occupied the post of Associate Professor and Professor, therefore, a writ of quo-warranto may be issued against the opposite party no. 3 which are as under : * AIR 1918 Mad 763 : G. A. Natesan, In re. (Paras 13,33 and 34), * A Ramchandran vs. A. Alagiriswami, AIR 1961 Mad 450 : (Paras 45 & 48), * Satish Chander Sharma vs. University of Rajasthan, AIR 1970 Raj. 184 : (Paras 17 to 22), * Kashmir Women's College Vs. Kashmir University, AIR 2012 J& K 44: (Para 13), * Sumith vs. State of Kerala, 2012 SCC Online Ker 8953: (Paras 58 & 59), However, those cases are also not applicable in the present issue inasmuch as the facts of the present case is different from those cases referred above. 21. Likewise Sri Anil Tewari has also referred some cases to contend that post of Associate Professor, Reader or Professor of the University since do not exercise any governmental function and those posts being not a 'public post', therefore, no writ of quo-warranto may be issued against the opposite party no. 3 for the post of Associate Professor and Professor which he had held in 2003 and 2004. As per Sri Tewari the Associate Professor, Reader or Professor are merely employees of the University which is a statutory body but they are not a statutory body, therefore, a writ of quo warranto may not be issued against such posts. Sri Tewari has referred some judgments to strengthen his aforesaid submission as under : "* Dr. P.S. Venkata Swami Setty v. University of Mysore, 1964 AIR(Mys) 159; para 11-15,417, * Dr. D.K. Belsare v. Nagpur University, 1980 82 BomLR 494, para 60-64, * Dr. S. Mahadevan v. Dr. S. Balasundaram, 1986 LabIC 2043; para 16-27, * Jagram Khachchu Ram v. Gwalior Town and Country Development, 1985 MPLJ 773 ; para 5-6 * Raghuvir Singh v. State of U.P, 1988 ALJ 529; para 25.1.2019. 22. It is however, clarified that the merit of the issue is not being dealt with and the point of maintainability of the writ petition has been considered by means of this order. 23. Since this writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage, therefore, notice to opposite party no. 3 is hereby dispensed with as no prejudice is being caused to opposite party no. 3 by means of this order. 24. 23. Since this writ petition is being decided finally at the admission stage, therefore, notice to opposite party no. 3 is hereby dispensed with as no prejudice is being caused to opposite party no. 3 by means of this order. 24. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the relevant material available on record as well as the case laws so referred by the learned counsel for the respective parties, I am of the considered opinion that the present petitioner has not assailed the present office of the opposite party no. 3 which is an office of Vice Chancellor, KGMU rather he has prayed a writ of quo warranto for the offices which the opposite party no. 3 occupied in the year 2003-04 respectively. It is an admitted fact by the petitioner himself that the opposite party no. 3 is presently not occupying the post of Associate Professor or Professor. The office of Vice Chancellor is a whole time office and opposite party no. 3 being a Vice Chancellor is a whole time salaried officer of the KGMU. Besides, Associate Professor or Professor may be treated as employees of KGMU, the statutory body but these posts may not be termed as 'public office' inasmuch as those posts are neither created by a statute or under any constitutional provision. At the last but not the least the locus of the present petitioner creates serious doubt in the mind of the Court for the reason that earlier identical writ petition bearing Service Single No. 16635 of 2019 was filed by one Professor Ashish Wakhlu which was dismissed being not pressed with liberty to file fresh petition but the present petition which is almost verbatim the same has been filed by one busybody who is having no actual interest of any kind whatsoever in the affairs of KGMU and it appears that it is a proxy petition for extraneous motivation for the purposes of publicity, therefore, the present writ petition whereby the prayer of issuance of writ of quo-warranto has been prayed is misconceived. 25. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed.