Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 256 (ALL)

K. Ragupathi v. Bachchu Singh

2020-01-22

B.K.NARAYANA, RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri K. Raghupathi, the petitioner in person, Sri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2 and Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers to issue:- "a) A Writ, order, declaration or direction in the name or form and nature of Quo warranto to the Respondent to show cause on what rights he is holding an independent substantive public statutory office of Registrar of State. (b) A writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to grant interim relief to the effect that the Respondent be restrained not to participate in any decision or policy "making processes concerning any of the academic and research activities and administration of the University until the pendency of this present writ petition. (c) Any other writ, order, declaration or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice; and (d) Award cost of the petition to petitioner." 3. Following order was passed in this writ petition by another coordinate Bench of this Court on 5.3.2019:- "The case of the petitioner is that though as per Section 13 of the Uttar Pradesh Gautam Buddha University Act, 2002, as amended, the Registrar shall be appointed by the Board of Management of the University in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, but by the order impugned dated 24.8.2018, the respondent, Shri Bachchu Singh has been appointed as Registrar of the University by the State Government. The appointment of respondent, Shri Bachchu Singh as per the petitioner is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act, 2002 as amended and as such he is a usurper of the office concerned. It is also brought to our notice that by filing Writ-A No. 12027 of 2018, the petitioner assailed the validity of appointments made to the post of Vice Chancellor, Registrar and the Finance Officer, but that petition for writ was dismissed on 07.12.2018. In the petition aforesaid, the appointment of Vice Chancellor was not interfered by the Court as the same was in officiating capacity. In the petition aforesaid, the appointment of Vice Chancellor was not interfered by the Court as the same was in officiating capacity. With regard to appointments to the post of Registrar and Finance Officer, the court held that the petitioner failed to show as to how the appointments on the posts aforesaid are illegal. The Court also observed that nothing has been disclosed in the petition for writ about deficiencies in the appointments concerned. Reference of the case aforesaid is also given in the petition for writ. A co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2018 issued notice to the respondent, Shri. Bachchu Singh and thereafter under an order dated 13.2.2019, the petitioner was permitted to implead the State of U.P. as party respondent. We are of the considered opinion that for appropriate adjudication of the issue involved in the petition for writ, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar is also a party necessary to the writ proceedings. The petitioner is permitted to implead the Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar also as party respondent. The amended cause title is required to be filed by the petitioner by tomorrow. The notice issued to respondent, Shri. Bachchu Singh has not yet been served. Let a fresh notice be issued to the respondent, Shri. Bachchu Singh and the same be given Dasti by the learned counsel for the petitioner with liberty to remit the same through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due. A notice be also issued to the newly impleaded Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Government of Uttar Pradesh wants sometime to complete the instructions and also to file a short counter affidavit to the petition for writ, if required to satisfy the court as to how the order dated 24.8.2018 has been passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh, Department of Appointment, Section-2 giving appointment to the respondent, Shri. Bachchu Singh as Registrar of the Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar. Let this petition for writ be listed on 02.4.2019." 4. In view of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 3 have filed their counter affidavits to which the petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit. Despite order passed in this case on 4.12.2019, no counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2. Let this petition for writ be listed on 02.4.2019." 4. In view of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 3 have filed their counter affidavits to which the petitioner has filed his rejoinder affidavit. Despite order passed in this case on 4.12.2019, no counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No. 2. However, when this matter was taken up today, Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 produced before us the written instructions which are in the form of a written narrative received by him from respondent No. 2, which have been taken on record. 5. Facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner is an Indian citizen, independent legal researcher and a public spirited person who was in the service of Gautam Buddha University, Uttar Pradesh as Senior Scientific Officer until 12.8.2014 (hereinafter referred to as "the University"). While in service of the University, the petitioner was allotted official residence at D-2, Type-V, Faculty Housing, Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar, District Uttar Pradesh, which he continued to occupy till 2018 on which date, he and his family were forcibly and illegally evicted by the illegally appointed officers of the University without following due procedures and observing principles of natural justice and apart from that, the University also took physical possession of the properties of the petitioner including case files documents, valuables primarily to frustrate Writ Petition (C) No. 51962 of 2014 filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner had challenged the order of termination dated 12.8.2014 passed by the University by which the University had refused to extend the contract of his service. The aforesaid writ petition was eventually dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.5.2018. Bachchu Singh, respondent No. 1 in this writ petition, was appointed as Registrar of the University by respondent No. 2 on 24.8.2018. Copy of his appointment order has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to this writ petition. The petitioner alleges that the University was established under The Uttar Pradesh Gautam Buddha University Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Section 13(1) of the Act before its amendment in the year 2008, provided that the Registrar shall be appointed by the Chancellor in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. The petitioner alleges that the University was established under The Uttar Pradesh Gautam Buddha University Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Section 13(1) of the Act before its amendment in the year 2008, provided that the Registrar shall be appointed by the Chancellor in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. Section 13 sub- section (1) of the Act was amended by Section 3 sub- section (1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gautam Buddha University (Amendment) Act, 2008 (U.P. Act No. 21 of 2008) by which the power of appointing Registrar was conferred on the Board of Management in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. 6. Respondent No. 1 Bachchu Singh in the counter affidavit filed by him has taken the stand that he was appointed by the Vice-Chancellor of the University in the exercise of his powers under Section 10 sub- section (5) of the Act and his appointment was subsequently approved by the Board of Management and hence, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 1 was appointed by an Authority not competent. 7. As regards the respondent No. 3, the stand taken is that the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to maintain this writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that before filing the present quo- warranto petition, the petitioner had filed three writ petitions namely, Writ Petition Nos. 54883 of 2014, 63625 of 2014 and 12027 of 2018. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 54883 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of appointment of Sri Pushyapati Saxena, the (hen Registrar of the University, which was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner as the Officer stood transferred. 8. Writ - A No. 63625 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner assailing the removal of Dr. J.P. Sharma, the then Vice-Chancellor of the University, which was dismissed by this Court by an order dated 26.11.2014 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- upon the petitioner. 9. Writ-A No. 12027 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of the then acting Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and the Finance Officer which was dismissed by order dated 7.12.2018 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- upon the petitioner. 10. 5,000/- upon the petitioner. 9. Writ-A No. 12027 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of the then acting Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and the Finance Officer which was dismissed by order dated 7.12.2018 with cost of Rs. 5,000/- upon the petitioner. 10. In the counter affidavit of respondent No. 3, it has also been averred that since during the pendency of the three writ petitions before this Court, which were filed by the petitioner challenging the refusal of the University to extend the term of his contractual appointment, the University had not dispossessed him from his official residence in view of the oral undertaking given by the counsel for the respondent No. 3 before this Court in this regard, he kept quiet of the dismissal of the successive writ petitions filed by him before this Court but when dispossessed from his official residence, he has filed the instant writ petition. It is apparent that the filing of this writ petition is motivated by malice and vendetta and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. Moreover, the issuance of quo warranto being discriminatory, considering the conduct of the petitioner, the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that in case this Court eventually comes to a conclusion quashing the appointment of respondent No. 1, in that case, this Court keeping in view the interest of the University, allow respondent No. 1- Bachchu Singh, to function as Registrar of the University till a regular appointment is made. 12. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appointment of respondent No. 2 in the University as Registrar has been made dehors the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Gautam Buddha University (Amendment) Act, 2008 (U.P. Act No. 21 of 2008), hence, a writ of Quo Warranto be issued quashing his appointment and restraining him from functioning as Registrar of the University. 13. Sri Suresh Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has submitted that since the order passed by the State Government appointing respondent No. 1 as the Registrar of the University has been ratified by the Board of Management of the University, it will be deemed to be an appointment made by the Board of Management and not by the State Government. In case the Board of Management of the University was not inclined to accept the appointment of respondent No. 1 as the Registrar of the University, it could have refused to ratify the appointment of respondent No. 1 and this having not been done, respondent No. 1 by fiction of law, shall be deemed to be appointed by the Board of Management. He has referred to Section 47 of the Act. 14. Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 made his submissions supporting the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Registrar in the University and raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of this writ petition at the behest of the petitioner on account of his conduct which disentitles him from grant of any relief by this Court. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 15. Before proceeding to examine the contention of the petitioner on merits, we proceed to examine the matter on maintainability. The preliminary objection raised by Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the same being not bona fide exercise, but vitiated by malice and vendetta. In support of his contention Sri Rahul Agarwal has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Kamataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees' Association and others (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II): (AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 3106) in which the Apex Court while dealing with the challenge to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge, quashed the orders passed by the High Court holding that the writ petition filed by the Employees' Union and the President of the Union Halakatte was absolutely lacking in bona fides. Paragraphs 52 and 53 of the aforesaid judgment which are relevant for our purpose are being reproduced hereinbelow:- "52. The judgment impugned in this appeal not only exceeds the limit of Quo Warranto but has not properly appreciated the fact that writ petition filed by the Employees' Union and the President of the Union Halakatte was absolutely lacking in bona fides. In the instant case, the motive of the second respondent Halakatte is very clear and the Court might in its discretion declined to grant a Quo Warranto. 53. In the instant case, the motive of the second respondent Halakatte is very clear and the Court might in its discretion declined to grant a Quo Warranto. 53. This Court in A.N. Sashtri v. State of Punjab and Others, ((1988) Supp SCC 127: AIR 1988 SC 404 ) 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 18.01.2003 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 24.02.2003, process was issued to the second respondent who was enlarged on bail on 12.06.2003 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 02.11.1992 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 the respondent Nos. 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 is relaxed to an extent in a Quo Warranto proceedings. Nonetheless an imposture coming before the Court invoking public law remedy at the hands of a Constitutional Court suppressing material facts has to be dealt with firmly." 16. It is no doubt true that the strict rules of locus standi is relaxed to an extent in a Quo Warranto proceedings. Nonetheless an imposture coming before the Court invoking public law remedy at the hands of a Constitutional Court suppressing material facts has to be dealt with firmly." 16. Per contra, refuting the contention of Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, the petitioner submitted that where it is found that the appointment of a public servant is wholly dehors the rules, irrespective of the conduct of the person challenging the said appointment, a writ of quo warranto has to be issued by this Court. In support of his contention, he has relied upon Dr. Kashinath G. Jalmi and another v. The Speaker and others, (1993) 2 SCC 703 : ( AIR 1993 SC 1873 ) and N. Kannadasan v. Ajoy Khose and others, (2009) 7 SCC 1 : (AIR Online 2009 SC 178) and submitted that in a writ of quo warranto proceedings, the conduct and motive of the petitioner is wholly irrelevant. 17. Paragraphs 134 and 136 of N. Kannadasan (AIR Online 2009 SC 178) (supra) which are relevant for our purpose, are being reproduced hereinbelow:- "134. Indisputably a writ of Quo Warranto can be issued inter alia when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules as has been held by this Court in High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat, (supra) and R.K. Jain v. Union of India and, (1993) 4 SCC 119 : ( AIR 1993 SC 1769 ). See also Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commr. and Secy. [ (2002) 6 SCC 269 : ( AIR 2002 SC 2513 )]. 136. In Dr. Kashinath G Jalmi (supra), it was held that even the motive or conduct of the appellants may be relevant only for denying them the costs even if their claim succeeds but it cannot be a justification to refuse to examine the merits of the question raised therein, since that is a matter of public concern and relates to good governance of the State." 18. Paragraph 34, 35 and 36 of Dr. Kashinath G Jalmi and another (supra) which are also relevant for our purpose are being extracted hereinbelow:- "34. Paragraph 34, 35 and 36 of Dr. Kashinath G Jalmi and another (supra) which are also relevant for our purpose are being extracted hereinbelow:- "34. In our opinion the exercise of discretion by the court even where the application is delayed, is to be governed by the objective of promoting public interest and good administration; and on that basis it cannot be said that discretion would not be exercised in favour of interference where it is necessary to prevent continuance of usurpation of office or perpetuation of an illegality. 35. We may also advert to a related aspect. Learned counsel for the respondents were unable to dispute, that any other member of the public, to whom the oblique motives and conduct alleged against the appellants in the present case could not be attributed, could file such a writ petition even now for the same relief, since the alleged usurpation of the office is continuing, and this disability on the ground of oblique motives and conduct would not attach to him. This being so, the relief claimed by the appellants in their writ petitions filed in the High Court being in the nature of a class action, without seeking any relief personal to them, should not have been dismissed merely on the ground of laches. The motive or conduct of the appellants, as alleged by the respondents, in such a situation can be relevant only for denying them the costs even if their claim succeeds, but it cannot be a justification to refuse to examine the merits of the question raised therein, since that is a matter of public concern and relates to the good governance of the State itself. 36. Shri R.K. Garg submitted that laches of the appellants can not legitimise usurpation of office by Ravi S. Naik, Chopdekar and Bandekar; and Shri Jethmalani submitted that manifest illegality will not be sustained solely on the ground of laches when it results in continuance in a public office of a person without lawful authority. 36. Shri R.K. Garg submitted that laches of the appellants can not legitimise usurpation of office by Ravi S. Naik, Chopdekar and Bandekar; and Shri Jethmalani submitted that manifest illegality will not be sustained solely on the ground of laches when it results in continuance in a public office of a person without lawful authority. The fact that the situation continues unaltered, since these persons continue to hold the public offices, to which they are alleged to be disentitled, is in our opinion sufficient to hold that the writ petitions ought not to have been dismissed merely on the ground of laches at the admission stage, without examining the contention on merits that these offices including that of the Chief Minister of the State, are being held by persons without any lawful authority. The dismissal of the writ petitions by the High Court merely on this ground can not, therefore, be sustained." 19. It is relevant to note that the judgment relied upon by Sri Rahul Agarwal is a judgment of Division Bench while the judgment on which the petitioner has placed reliance in Dr. Kashinath G Jalmi and another (supra) has been rendered by a Bench of three Judges. 20. Thus, upon a careful reading of the law reports cited by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that although in the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy (supra), the Apex Court held that where the filing of a quo warranto petition is riot bona fide, the Court may refuse to issue writ of quo warranto. However, in the two judgments which have been cited by the petitioner, it has been categorically held that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules and motive or conduct of the person challenging such appointment may be relevant only for denying them the costs even if their claims succeeds, but it cannot be a justification to refuse to examine the merits of the question raised by them since that is the matter of public concern and relates to the good governance of the State. 21. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the preliminary objection raised by Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and hence, we proceed to examine the matter on merits. 22. 21. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the preliminary objection raised by Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and hence, we proceed to examine the matter on merits. 22. In order to appreciate respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to extract unamended Section 13(1), amended Section 3, Section 10(5) and Section 47 of the Act. Section 13(1) of the Act reads as hereunder:- "13(1) The Registrar shall be appointed by the Chancellor in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed." 23. Section 3(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Gautam Buddha University (Amendment) Act, 2008 (U.P. Act No. 21 of 2008) reads hereinunder:- "3(1) The Registrar shall be appointed by the Board of Management in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed." 24. Section 10(5) of the Act reads hereinunder:- "10(5) Where any matter other than the appointment of a teacher is of urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same could not be immediately dealt with this Act to deal with by any officer or the authority or other body of the University empowered by or under this Act to deal with it, the Vice-Chancellor may take such action as he may deem fit and shall forthwith report the action taken by him to the Chancellor and also to the officer, authority, or other body who or which in the ordinary course, would have dealt with the matter." 25. Section 47 of the Act reads hereinunder:- "47. The State Government shall have the following powers also, namely:- (a) to issue direction with respect to any matter required to be done by the University by or under this Act or the rules, the Statutes or the Ordinances made thereunder; and (b) to order framing of Statutes on any subject." 26. There is no dispute about the fact that when respondent No. 1 was appointed as Registrar on 21.4.2018, the original Section 13(1) of the Act stood amended and under the amended Section 3(1) of the Act, it is Board of Management of the University which alone has the power to appoint the Registrar of the University. 27. There is no dispute about the fact that when respondent No. 1 was appointed as Registrar on 21.4.2018, the original Section 13(1) of the Act stood amended and under the amended Section 3(1) of the Act, it is Board of Management of the University which alone has the power to appoint the Registrar of the University. 27. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 made a feeble attempt to save the appointment of respondent No. 1 by referring to and placing reliance upon Section 10(5) of the Act, whereas Sri Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2 has endeavoured to defend the action of the State by placing reliance upon Section 47 of the Act. 28. As far as sub-section (5) of Section 10 of the Act is concerned, we do not find that the same is of any help to the respondents. It merely stipulates that where any matter other than the appointment of a teacher is of urgent nature, requiring immediate action and the same could not be immediately dealt with this Act to deal with by any officer or the authority or other body of the University empowered by or under this Act to deal with it, the Vice-Chancellor may take such action as he may deem fit and shall forthwith report the action taken by him to the Chancellor and also to the officer, authority, or other body who or which in the ordinary course, would have dealt with the matter. The second proviso to subsection (5) of Section 10 states that the Vice-chancellor shall immediately seek the approval of any such decision taken by him from Chancellor and Chancellor may either confirm the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor or annul the same or modify it in such manner, as he thinks fit. 28A. Respondent No. 1 has tried to impress upon us that in the instant case, the appointment of respondent No. 1 has not been made by the State Government but by the Vice-Chancellor and he has invited our attention to Annexure-3 of the writ petition, which is an office order issued by the Vice-Chancellor. However, after going through the office order dated 25th March, 2019, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 for the reason that the appointment of the respondent was made on 24th August, 2018. However, after going through the office order dated 25th March, 2019, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 for the reason that the appointment of the respondent was made on 24th August, 2018. The office order dated 25th March, 2019, in our opinion is of no help to the respondent No. 1. The Vice-Chancellor of the University issued the aforesaid order on 25th March, in purported exercise of his power under Section 10(5) of the Act, apparently as an afterthought and after almost ten months from the date of the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Registrar and his assuming the charge of the office of the Registrar. Even from the bare perusal of the office order dated 25.3.2019, it is crystal clear that the appointment of respondent No. 1 was made by the State Government. 29. Now coming to the submission made by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the appointment of respondent No. 1 has been made by the State Government in exercise of its powers under section 47 of the Act which confers power on the State to issue directions with respect to any matter required to be done by the University by or under this Act or the rules, the Statutes or the Ordinances made thereunder; and to order framing of Statutes on any subject. The learned Standing Counsel has failed to demonstrate that the impugned appointment of respondent No. 1 was made under Section 47 of the Act. There is nothing under Section 47 of the Act which may even remotely indicate that the State Government could have appointed the Registrar of the University and forwarded the information about his appointment to the Board of Management for ratification. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also failed to bring to our notice any provision under the Act providing that where any appointment which the Board of Management alone is empowered to make, can be made by the State Government and if the Board of Management ratifies the same, the defect, if any, in the appointment which should have been made under the provisions of the Act, is made by any other authority or the State, stands cured. 30. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of The University of Mysore and Others v. CD. 30. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of The University of Mysore and Others v. CD. Govinda Rao and others, AIR 1965 SC 491 Paragraphs 7 and 8 held as under: "7. As Halsbury has observed: "An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the place of the obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay against a person who claimed or usurped an office, 'franchise, or liberty, to, inquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order that the right to the office or franchise might be determined:" 8. Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial remedy by which any person, who holds 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, so that his title to it may be duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder of the office has no title, he would be ousted from that office by judicial order." 31. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto gives the judiciary a weapon to control the Executive from making appointments to public office against law and to protect a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right. These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office, who might be allowed to continue either with the connivance of the Executive or by reason of its apathy. It will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the Court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. 32. In High Court of Gujarat and others v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat and others reported in (2003)4 SCC 712: ( AIR 2003 SC 1201 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 24 held as under: "A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to statutory rules. [See Mor Modern Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and Anr. [(2002) SUPP 1 SCR 87]" 33. [See Mor Modern Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. v. Financial Commissioner and Secretary to Govt. of Haryana and Anr. [(2002) SUPP 1 SCR 87]" 33. Similarly in Rajesh Awasthi v, Nand Lal Jaiswal and others (2013)1 SCC 501 : ( AIR 2013 SC 78 ) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph No. 16 held as under: 16. A writ of quo warranto will lie when the appointment is made contrary to the statutory provisions. This Court in Mor Modem Coop. Transport Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v. Govt. of Haryana, (2002) 6 SCC 269 : ( AIR 2002 SC 2513 ) held that a writ of quo warranto can be issued when appointment is contrary to the statutory provisions. In B. Srinivasa Reddy (supra), this Court has reiterated the legal position that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is limited to one which can only be issued if the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. The said position has been reiterated by this Court in Hari Bans Lal (supra) wherein this Court has held that for the issuance of writ of quo warranto, the High Court has to satisfy that the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. 34. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that the appointment of respondent No. 1 - Bachchu Singh as Registrar in the University has been made by an Authority which had no power under the Act to appoint him. Since his appointment is dehors the provisions of Section 13 sub- section (1) of the Act, the same cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. 35. We accordingly, issue a writ of Quo Warranto and allow this writ petition quashing the appointment of respondent No. 1 as Registrar. 36. This order, however, shall not preclude the Vice-Chancellor of the University from exercising his powers under Section 10(5) of the Act or any other provision of the Act to meet the vacuum created in the University on account of the appointment of Registrar respondent No. 1 having been adjudged to be illegal and dehors the provisions of the Act. 37. This order, however, shall not preclude the Vice-Chancellor of the University from exercising his powers under Section 10(5) of the Act or any other provision of the Act to meet the vacuum created in the University on account of the appointment of Registrar respondent No. 1 having been adjudged to be illegal and dehors the provisions of the Act. 37. Since we have been informed that although the Gautam Buddha University, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar was created in the year 2002 but no rules or ordinances have been framed till date by the University, it will be desirable if the University acts promptly in this matter and frames requisite statutes, rules and regulations. There shall be however, no order as to costs.