JUDGMENT : KARDAK ETE, J. Heard Mr. D.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, for State respondents and Ms. A. Begum, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 02.03.2024 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, whereby, Md. Sadique Anuwar (respondent No.4 herein) has been temporarily allowed to act as Principal In- Charge of Bechamari M.I H.S. School, Nagaon, in addition to his normal duties as Assistant Teacher along with financial power as per the provision of FR 49(c). 3. The petitioner was appointed as Subject Teacher (History) in the Bechamari M.I. H.S. School on 27.03.2001 and has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner, being senior most teacher, was allowed to hold the charge of Principal In-Charge of Bechamari M.I. H.S. School vide an order dated 05.04.2023, which was put to challenge by the respondent No.4 being WP(C) 2042/2023. By an order dated 05.12.2023, this Court has disposed of the writ petition holding that the petitioner has crossed the age of 57 years on 31.10.2022 and applying the provision of Rule 12(3)(v) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Rules, 2018 (in short, the Rules of 2018), the petitioner having crossed the maximum age limit of 57 years, as on 1st day of January, 2023, she would not be eligible to hold the charge of the post of Principal on the date when the impugned order dated 05.04.2023 was issued, thereby, holding the order dated 05.04.2023 was issued in violation of the provisions of the above Rules rendering it unsustainable and accordingly, it was interfered with. It was directed the Director of Secondary Education to take requisite steps for filling up the post of Principal of Bechamari M.I. H.S. School on regular basis and till the post is filled up on regular basis and in the event, the petitioner, (respondent No.4 herein) is senior most and eligible Assistant Teacher, he should be allowed to discharge the functions of the Principal of the school on In-charge basis. 4. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 02.03.2024, the respondent No.4 has been temporarily allowed to act as Principal In-Charge of Bechamari M.I. H.S. School in addition to his normal duties as Assistant Teacher along with financial powers as per provisions of FR 49(c). 4. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 02.03.2024, the respondent No.4 has been temporarily allowed to act as Principal In-Charge of Bechamari M.I. H.S. School in addition to his normal duties as Assistant Teacher along with financial powers as per provisions of FR 49(c). Hence, this writ petition, challenging the order dated 02.03.2024. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 was appointed as Assistant Teacher of Bechamari M.I. H.S. School at a consolidated pay of Rs.2500/- vide an order dated 28.03.2001, who has been allowed graduate scale of pay only w.e.f. 26.02.2021. For appointment to the post of Principal under the Rules of 2018, inter alia, requires that the candidate must have 17 years of teaching experience as graduate teacher in any higher secondary school and 15 years of service as post graduate teacher in any of the provincialized higher secondary school/senior secondary school provided that in case of graduate teacher the seniority shall be counted from the date of getting salaries meant for graduate teacher. Since the petitioner was allowed graduate scale of pay only w.e.f. 26.02.2021, the respondent No.4 is not eligible for appointment to the post of Principal of Bechamari M.I. H.S. School, therefore, he is not eligible to act as Principal In-Charge even on temporary basis. 6. Mr. D.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that although, the petitioner has retired from service by now, she is seeking issue of writ of quo warranto as the respondent No.4, has been allowed to hold the Principal In- Charge of Bechamari M.I. H.S. School on temporary basis despite he being not eligible to hold the post of Principal of the said school in terms of the Rules 12(3)(iv) and 24 of the Rules of 2018. Therefore, the impugned order dated 02.03.2024 has been passed in violation of the statutory Rules as the petitioner is not eligible to hold the post of Principal of the said school on being granted graduate scale of pay only w.e.f. 26.02.2021, as the Rule provides that a candidate must have 17 years of teaching experience as graduate teacher in higher secondary school, and as such, the impugned order dated 02.03.2024 may be set aside and quashed. 7. Ms. 7. Ms. D. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department, submits that the respondent No.4 has been allowed temporarily to act as Principal In-Charge in addition to his normal duties as Assistant Teacher pursuant to the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 05.12.2023 in WP(C) 2042/2023, wherein, this Hon’ble Court has interfered with the order dated 05.04.2023 ( wherein the petitioner was allowed to hold the charge of Principal In-Charge of Bechamari M.I. H.S. School). The impugned order is not a regular appointment order but a temporary one till the post of Principal is filled up on regular basis. That apart, she submits that since the petitioner has retired from the service, she could not have any grievance against the said order by now, therefore, she has no locus standi to raise a grievance against the impugned order dated 02.03.2024. 8. Ms. A. Begum, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 while adopting the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, submits that the respondent No.4 is fully qualified and eligible for the post of Principal In-charge of Bechamari M.I. H.S. School as he has completed 24 years of continuous service as graduate Assistant Teacher and is the senior most graduate teacher. Referring to the notification dated 26.02.2021, she submits that she has been recognized as graduate teacher during 2001. The grant of graduate pay scale in the year 2021 recognizes as graduate teacher since his appointment in the year 2001. She submits that the impugned order dated 02.03.2024 has been passed in pursuance to the order of this Hon’ble Court in WP(C) 2042/2023, wherein, the appointment of the petitioner was interfered with having been found that he was not eligible under the Rules and the said order allowing the petitioner to hold the Principal In-charge was in violation of the provisions under the Rules of 2018. Now the petitioner, having been retired from service, would not have any grievance against the respondent No.4. Therefore, she submits that the writ petition may be dismissed. 9 . I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10 . The petitioner was appointed as Subject Teacher vide an order dated 26.03.2001 and the respondent No.4 was appointed on 28.03.2001 at a consolidated pay of Rs.2500/- as Assistant Teacher in the Bechamari M.I.H.S. School, Nagaon. 9 . I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10 . The petitioner was appointed as Subject Teacher vide an order dated 26.03.2001 and the respondent No.4 was appointed on 28.03.2001 at a consolidated pay of Rs.2500/- as Assistant Teacher in the Bechamari M.I.H.S. School, Nagaon. The respondent No. 4, was allowed graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 26.02.2021. 11 . The petitioner was allowed to hold the charge of Principal In-Charge of the aforesaid school with financial power which has been put to challenge by the respondent No.4 in WP(C) 2042/2023. This Court vide an order dated 05.12.2023, disposed of the writ petition, having found that the petitioner has crossed the maximum age limit of 57 years, has held that the said appointment was in violation of the provision of Rule 12(3)(v) of the Rules of 2018 and accordingly interfered with. It was directed the respondent authorities to take steps for filling up the post of Principal of the said school on regular basis and till the post of Principal is filled up on regular basis, in the event, the petitioner is senior most and eligible Assistant teacher working in the school, he should be allowed to discharge the function of Principal on In-charge basis. Pursuant thereto, although no steps appears to have been taken to fill up the post of Principal on regular basis, the respondent authority has allowed the respondent No.4 to act as Principal In-Charge on temporary basis. 12. Rule 12 of the Rules of 2018, provides mode of appointment and minimum qualification for recruitment to the post of Principal. The relevant provisions is extracted as under: “12. Recruitment to Principal and procedure thereof:- (1) The posts of the Principal in provincialised Higher Secondary Schools shall be filled up by direct recruitment from the candidates amongst the cadre of Post Graduate Teachers of Senior Secondary and Higher Secondary School and Graduate Teachers of Higher Secondary School as per procedure under sub-rule (5), (2) The posts of the Principal in provincialised Senior Secondary Schools shall be filled up by direct recruitment from the candidates amongst the cadre of Post Graduate Teachers of Senior Secondary and Higher Secondary School as per procedure under sub-rule (5). Explanation: The Senior Secondary and Higher Secondary School shall include any Senior Secondary and Higher Secondary School in the State. Explanation: The Senior Secondary and Higher Secondary School shall include any Senior Secondary and Higher Secondary School in the State. (3) The minimum qualifications for appointment to the post of Principal in Higher Secondary School and Senior Secondary School shall be as follows:- (i) The candidate must be M.A./M.Sc./M.Com with B.T/B.Ed degree from any recognized University having uniform good academic career. In respect of Hindi Teacher having degree qualification, the Hindi 'Parangat' and 'Nishanat shall be considered instead of B.T/B.Ed; (ii) The candidate must have rendered at least 15 years of service as Post Graduate Teachers in any of the provincialised Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary School; or (iii) The candidate must have rendered at least 5 years of service as Vice-Principal in any of the provincialised Higher Secondary School; or (iv) The candidate must have 17 years of teaching experience as Graduate Teacher in any Higher Secondary School; (v) The age of the candidates must not be more than 57 years as on the first January of the year of recruitment: Provided that the service and teaching experience acquired in a School during provincialised period shall be counted. The period rendered prior to provncialisation of the School shall not be counted; (vi) The candidate must possess commanding personality, administrative ability, leadership skills and integrity. 13. Rule 24 provides for determination of seniority, which is extracted as under:- “24. Seniority:- (1) the seniority of a member in a cadre appointed by direct recruitment shall be determined according to the order of preference in the respective select list finally approved under Rule 8(2) in respect of Post Graduate Teacher or Graduate teacher, if he joins the appointment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order of appointment or within the extended period as mentioned in Rule 19. (2) If a member of the service in a cadre fails to join the appointment within the initial 15 days of receipt of the order of appointment or within the extended period as mentioned in Rule 19, but joins later, his seniority shall be determined in accordance with the date of joining. (3) The seniority of a member of the service in a cadre who joins in a School otherwise than by direct recruitment i.e., on transfer or otherwise shall be determined as per the date of Joining in the School in the concerned cadre. (3) The seniority of a member of the service in a cadre who joins in a School otherwise than by direct recruitment i.e., on transfer or otherwise shall be determined as per the date of Joining in the School in the concerned cadre. If a member joins in the School through transfer from School of other district, the seniority shall be determined from the date of his joining in the School in the concerned cadre and the seniority in earlier School of other district or in the same school in a different cadre shall not be taken into account. (4) The seniority of the Graduate Classical Teacher of Hindi, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian, Assamese, Bodo etc having degree qualification from any recognized University shall be counted at par with other Graduate Teachers for consideration of promotion to the next higher post: Provided that the seniority of such Classical Teachers in the Graduate posts shall be counted from the date of his acquiring the degree qualification from recognized University. (5) In case of amalgamation of ME/MV/LP School with other Higher Secondary School/High School under the scheme Siksha Khetra, the employees of the amalgamated school shall be given seniority with effect from the date of joining on substantive appointment or regularization: Provided that in case of Graduate Teachers the seniority shall be counted from the date of getting salaries meant for a Graduate Teachers: Provided further that in case of contractual teachers the seniority shall be counted from the date of absorption in the sanctioned post carrying regular time scale of pay. (6) The seniority of the Headmaster of a ME/MV school subsequently amalgamated with Higher Secondary/High School shall be counted from the date of getting pay in the Graduate scale of pay. 7. If the date of joining in the School is same between two or more member of service in a cadre, the inter-se seniority shall be determined taking into account their date of birth.” 14. A bare reading of the above provisions show that the posts of the Principal shall be filled up by direct recruitment from the candidates amongst the cadre of Graduate Teachers of Higher Secondary School. A bare reading of the above provisions show that the posts of the Principal shall be filled up by direct recruitment from the candidates amongst the cadre of Graduate Teachers of Higher Secondary School. The candidates must have the minimum qualifications M.A./M.Sc./M.Com with B.T/B.Ed degree from any recognized University having uniform good academic career, must rendered at least 15 years of service as Post Graduate Teachers in any of the provincialised Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary School; or must have rendered at least 5 years of service as Vice-Principal in any of the provincialised Higher Secondary School; or the candidate must have 17 years of teaching experience as Graduate Teacher in any Higher Secondary School. The age of the candidates must not be more than 57 years as on the first January of the year of recruitment: Provided that the service and teaching experience acquired in a School during provincialised period shall be counted. The period rendered prior to provncialisation of the School shall not be counted and the candidate must possess commanding personality, administrative ability, leadership skills and integrity. 15 . Rule 24 provides, inter alia, that in case of amalgamation of ME/MV/LP School with other Higher Secondary School/High School under the scheme Siksha Khetra, the employees of the amalgamated school shall be given seniority with effect from the date of joining on substantive appointment or regularization, provided that in case of Graduate Teachers the seniority shall be counted from the date of getting salaries meant for a Graduate Teachers. 16 . There is no dispute that the respondent No.4 has received the graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 26.02.2021, and the petitioner has received the graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 28.03.2001. Thus, the petitioner is eligible to be appointed as Principal in terms of Rule 12(3)(iv) of the Rules of 2018 in respect of the qualifying years of teaching experience as graduate teacher. However, she is not eligible in terms of Rule 12(3)(v) of the Rules of 2018 as she has admittedly crossed the age of 57 years when the order 05.04.2023 was issued. 17 . The respondent No.4 having been received the graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 26.02.2021, he would not be eligible to be appointed as Principal if his seniority is counted from the date of receipt of graduate scale of pay. 17 . The respondent No.4 having been received the graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 26.02.2021, he would not be eligible to be appointed as Principal if his seniority is counted from the date of receipt of graduate scale of pay. But if the seniority is to be counted from the date of appointment, he having been appointed on 28.03.2001, he would be eligible. However, since the interpretation of the notification providing graduate scale of pay is not at issue, this Court refrains from commenting as to whether the years of initial appointment would be counted or not. 18 . Admittedly, the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation by now, and therefore, she ordinarily, would not have any grievance against the appointment to the post of Principal of the aforesaid school. 19. Having considered that Mr. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that even though the petitioner has retired from service, she would be entitled to seek writ of quo warranto, this Court deems it appropriate to refer the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the power of Court to issue writ of quo warranto. 20 . The Hon’ble Supreme Court, through a line of cases from the case of University of Mysore -vs- C.D. Govinda Rao reported in (1964) 4 SCR 579 to State of West Bengal -vs- Anindya Sundar Das & Ors ., reported in (2022) 16 SCC 15, has settled the position and held that the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointment 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 recognized 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. 21. In High Court of Gujarat vs. Gujrat Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat reported in (2003) 4 SCC 712 , it has been held that it must be seen at the outset as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of a writ of certiorari or a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one. While issuing such a writ, the Court merely make a public declaration but will not consider the respective impact on the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for issuance of a writ of certiorari. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. 22. In B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees' Assn ., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 731 , it had been held that 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. 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. Further, it was declared that public law declaration would only be made at the behest of a public-spirited person coming before the court as a petitioner. 23. Now, it is settled position of law that the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of writ of certiorari or a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of writ of quo warranto is limited one. 23. Now, it is settled position of law that the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is required to determine at the outset as to whether a case has been made out for issuance of writ of certiorari or a writ of quo warranto. The jurisdiction of writ of quo warranto is limited one. While issuing such writ, the Court merely makes a public declaration but will not consider the respective impact on the candidates or other factors which may be relevant for issuance of writ of certiorari. A writ of quo warranto can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory Rules in other words, the jurisdiction to issue of writ of quo warranto is a limited one which can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules. It is also settled law 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. The basic purpose of a writ of quo warranto is to confer jurisdiction on the constitutional Courts to see that a public office is not held by usurper without any legal authority. The position that a writ of quo warranto can be issued where an appointment has not been made in accordance with the law is well settled. 24. In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 02.03.2024, whereby the respondent No.4 has been allowed to temporarily act as the Principal In-Charge on the ground of violation of the Rule 12(1)(iv) and 24 of the Rules of the 2018. Upon due consideration, in my view, it would not fall under the jurisdiction of writ of quo warranto as the respondent No.4 cannot be held to be usurper of the public office without legal authority, which requires enquiry as to whether his appointment has been made in accordance with the law or not. At best, it would be a matter within the jurisdiction of writ of certiorari. At best, it would be a matter within the jurisdiction of writ of certiorari. The petitioner having been retired from service by now, would not have any grievance against the petitioner, more so, the appointment to hold the post of Principal In-Charge on temporary basis to the respondent No.4 is pursuant to the observation and direction of this Court on having been found eligible to hold the post of Principal under the Rules. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appointment is in violation of the provisions of the Rules of 2018 as the qualifying 17 years of teaching experience appears to be fulfilled by the respondent No.4. 25 . Thus, the claim of writ of quo warranto by Mr. D.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner is misplaced and cannot be accepted as the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to make out a case for issuance of writ of quo warranto, which is a limited one, which can only be issued when the appointment is contrary to the statutory Rules. The case appears to be classic example of counter blast application. The learned counsel for the petitioner has miserably failed to satisfy that the post of Principal, a public office is held by usurper without legal authority, which may required enquiry as to whether the appointment has been made in accordance with law or not. The present case at best would be a relevant for issuance of writ of certiorari as the issuance of writ of quo warranto merely makes a public declaration but would not consider the respective impact on the candidates. 26. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for issuance of writ of quo warranto and the consideration of the issue which has impact on the petitioner and the respondent No.4, would be a relevant only for the purpose of issuance of other writs which I have dealt with herein above. Accordingly, no interference is called for to the impugned order dated 02.03.2024 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam and the claim of writ of quo warranto stands rejected. However, the respondent authorities are directed fill up the post of Principal, Bechamari M.I. H.S, School on regular basis strictly in terms of the Rules of 2018 and the Order dated 05.12.2023. 27 . However, the respondent authorities are directed fill up the post of Principal, Bechamari M.I. H.S, School on regular basis strictly in terms of the Rules of 2018 and the Order dated 05.12.2023. 27 . In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.