Quo warranto against contractual appointment fails where the statute permits Government appointment and no statutory breach is shown.

An unregistered trade union and its office-bearer could not maintain a writ challenge where registration had been suppressed and material facts were not fully disclosed. A writ of quo warranto lies only if the appointment violates a statutory provision, and the Court found no such infringement because the governing statute empowered Government appointment, allowed the Managing Director to hold office during its pleasure, and did not prohibit contractual engagement. The appellant's experience satisfied the prescribed qualifications, the administrative memorandum could not override the Act and Rules, and allegations of legal malice were unsupported. The appointment was therefore upheld and the High Court judgment set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the writ petition challenging the appointment was maintainable at the instance of an unregistered trade union and its office-bearer; (ii) whether a writ of quo warranto lay against the appellant's appointment as Managing Director; (iii) whether the appellant's contractual appointment was contrary to the governing Act, Rules and service qualifications; and (iv) whether the appointment was vitiated by legal malice.

Issue (i): whether the writ petition challenging the appointment was maintainable at the instance of an unregistered trade union and its office-bearer.

Analysis: The association had not established a valid legal status on the date of filing and had suppressed the cancellation of its earlier registration. In quo warranto proceedings, although the locus rule is relaxed, the applicant must still approach the Court with bona fides and disclose material facts fully. A body acting for its members cannot rely on false averments or concealment to invoke public law remedies. The office-bearer's individual challenge did not cure the defect where the petition itself was founded on a false assertion of registration and recognition.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable at the instance of the unregistered association, and the challenge failed on the ground of lack of locus and suppression of material facts.

Issue (ii): whether a writ of quo warranto lay against the appellant's appointment as Managing Director.

Analysis: A writ of quo warranto issues only where the holding of office is shown to be contrary to a statutory provision. The office here was not a sovereign public office with fixed tenure and the governing statute vested appointment power in the Government and provided that the Managing Director would hold office during the Government's pleasure. The Court found no clear statutory infringement in appointing the appellant on contract basis, and held that administrative instructions could not enlarge the statutory disqualification or create an additional bar not found in the Act or Rules.

Conclusion: No writ of quo warranto lay against the appointment.

Issue (iii): whether the appellant's contractual appointment was contrary to the governing Act, Rules and service qualifications.

Analysis: Section 4(2) required prescribed qualification, and Rule 3 required experience in administration and commercial matters. The appellant possessed the requisite experience, and the statute did not prescribe a fixed tenure or prohibit appointment on contract basis. The Court held that the power to appoint included the power to appoint substantively, temporarily, officiatingly, on ad hoc terms, on daily wages, or on contract, especially where the statute stated that the holder served at the Government's pleasure. The administrative memorandum concerning re-employment of retired government servants did not override the statute and was in any event not a source of disqualification under the Act.

Conclusion: The appointment was not contrary to the Act or the Rules, and the appellant was not disqualified on this ground.

Issue (iv): whether the appointment was vitiated by legal malice.

Analysis: The Court found that the appointment was made in public interest, in a situation requiring continuity in leadership and urgent administrative decisions. Allegations of mala fides were unsupported and were outweighed by the factual background showing the appellant's experience and the urgency of the administrative need. The burden to establish mala fides was not discharged, and the presence of prior complaints did not by itself establish legal malice.

Conclusion: The finding of legal malice was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appointment was upheld, the writ challenge failed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside, leaving the Government free to make a fresh contractual appointment as and when required.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of quo warranto lies only when the appointment to public office is shown to violate a statutory provision, and where the governing statute confers appointment power on the Government and permits office to be held during its pleasure, a contractual appointment not prohibited by the statute cannot be invalidated merely by administrative instructions or unproved allegations of mala fides.

---