ORDER : (Goutam Bhaduri, J.) Heard. 1. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of quo warranto challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 10, Yogendra Kumar Sidar, who was appointed in the sect of Scheduled Tribes Category at Serial No. 8. The petitioner contends that Respondent No. 10 does not belong to the Scheduled Tribes, as the caste “Sanwara” ¼laojk½ has not been notified in the list of Scheduled Tribes for the State of Chhattisgarh. Therefore the said appointment made in respect of respondent No.10 under the Scheduled Tribes Category is eliminated as the caste “Sanwara” itself would not be included in the ST list. The appointment letter, Annexure P-1, dated 05/08/2010, shows that the appointment was conditional one as the caste certificate so furnished by the selected candidate ought to be verified by the High Power Caste Scrutiny Committee and thereafter to be submitted up till October 2010. 2. The submission of the petitioner is that the said certificate has not been furnished by respondent No.10 and as per the Annexure P-2, he belongs to the caste “Sanwara” ¼laojk½ which is not included in the Scheduled Tribes list for the State of Chhattisgarh. 3. The submission of the respondent No.10 is that the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III, to which he was selected, is not a substantive post under the State Government, and the appointment was made by the local self-government and the issuance of writ of quo warranto would be applicable when the incumbent is holding public office and is discharging public duty. 4. Further it is stated by respondent no. 10 that no public functions or responsibilities have been imposed on the Shiksha Karmi nor has been conferred with any policy to discharge public functions, therefore, the writ petition does not lie against him. Usurption 5. Despite notice, respondent No. 9, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh has chosen not to come before this court to file reply. 6. The reply of the State respondents 1 to 8 shows that the State Government had sent a proposal to the Central Government for the inclusion of the “Sanwara” ¼laojk½ and “Saunra” ¼lkSajk½ communities in the list of Scheduled Tribes. 6. The reply of the State respondents 1 to 8 shows that the State Government had sent a proposal to the Central Government for the inclusion of the “Sanwara” ¼laojk½ and “Saunra” ¼lkSajk½ communities in the list of Scheduled Tribes. However, the Central Government has issued a circular dated 29th June, 2010 and clarified that the aforesaid proposal of the State Government to add the above two tribes in the list of Schedule Tribes at Serial No. 41 was rejected by the Ministry on 10.06.2010. 7. It further purports that the Caste Certificate of the respondent No.10 was issued way back in the years 2000-01 by the Sub Divisional officer (Revenue), wherein the social status of respondent No.10 was recorded as “Sanwara” ¼laojk½ and the entire responsibility has been passed on by the State to the respondent No.10 that it is for respondent No.9 to explain how the respondent No.10 was selected. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length perused the documents. 9. A perusal of appointment letter whereby the respondent No.10 was appointed contains a specific direction that respondent No.10 was required to furnish his verification certificate within two months from the date of appointment i.e. from 05.08.2010 till October, 2010. However, since respondent No. 9, the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Baramkela, District Raigarh (C.G.), has not chosen to represent before the Court, therefore it is not before this Court whether the verification certificate was indeed submitted or not. 10. So far as the stand of the State is concerned, the proposal for inclusion of the “Sanwara” ¼laojk½ caste in the Scheduled Tribes list, though proposal was made by the State it was rejected by the Central Government on 10.06.2010. 11. So far as the submission of respondent No.10 is concerned that the appointment of respondent No.10 is not as a public servant cannot be accepted, since the office of Shiksha Karmi is created under the statute of Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam 1993, and the rules made thereunder i.e., The Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2007, the office therefore held by respondent No.10 is, substantive in nature and permanent character, and not terminable at will. The office further holds the title of independence. Respondent No.10, by such virtue of appointment, is in actual possession of the office and is not any contravention of any law. The office further holds the title of independence. Respondent No.10, by such virtue of appointment, is in actual possession of the office and is not any contravention of any law. It is a settled proposition that the proposition of locus standi for quo warranto does not apply in this case, and the petitioner cannot be non-suited on this ground. 12. In view of the categorical submissions by the State that the “Sanwara” caste is not included in the Scheduled Tribes list, prima facie it appears that respondent No.10 is holding the office without any authority of law by virtue of status by which he was appointed. Even on merit, the petitioner was appointed barring his status with disqualification clause that his caste status should have been verified within the specified time, thereby he acquires disqualification after October 2010. However, the Caste Certificate purportedly showing the “Sanwara” ¼laojk½ caste as a Scheduled Tribe, on the basis of which respondent No. 10 occupied the office has been filed, is not recognised in State of Chhattisgarh. 13. In the facts of the case, since respondent No.9 who appointed, is not before the court, it is directed that respondent No. 9 would conduct an enquiry within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order, and if the disqualification still continues, in such case, a suitable order may be passed accordingly. 14. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.