Mandatory selection committee satisfaction on disqualification grounds can invalidate an appointment and attract quo warranto.

The Selection Committee was required to satisfy itself, before recommending a Chairperson, that the candidate had no financial or other interest likely to prejudice the office; that statutory satisfaction was a mandatory condition precedent and could not be left to the Government. Non-compliance with that requirement vitiated the appointment from inception, because a writ of quo warranto lies where a public office is held contrary to statutory provisions. The appointment was therefore without legal authority and liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Selection Committee was required to satisfy itself, before recommending any person for appointment as Chairperson, that the person had no financial or other interest likely to prejudicially affect the functions of the office; (ii) whether non-compliance with that requirement rendered the appointment liable to be quashed in a writ of quo warranto.

Issue (i): whether the Selection Committee was required to satisfy itself, before recommending any person for appointment as Chairperson, that the person had no financial or other interest likely to prejudicially affect the functions of the office.

Analysis: The statutory language made the Committee's own satisfaction a condition precedent to recommendation. The requirement was expressed in mandatory terms and had to be fulfilled by the Committee itself before forwarding any name to the State Government. Leaving that assessment to the Government amounted to abandonment of the statutory function and was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act and the governing recruitment rules.

Conclusion: The requirement was mandatory and had to be complied with by the Selection Committee itself before recommendation.

Issue (ii): whether non-compliance with that requirement rendered the appointment liable to be quashed in a writ of quo warranto.

Analysis: A writ of quo warranto lies where a public office is held contrary to statutory provisions. Since the mandatory requirement under Section 85(5) went to the root of the selection process, its breach vitiated the appointment from inception and could not be treated as a mere curable irregularity. The appointment was therefore without legal authority.

Conclusion: The appointment was liable to be quashed in quo warranto and the incumbent had no authority to continue in office.

Final Conclusion: The appointment was declared invalid for want of compliance with the mandatory statutory procedure, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires a selection committee to satisfy itself on a specified disqualification before recommending a candidate, that satisfaction is a mandatory precondition to a valid appointment, and non-compliance renders the appointment amenable to quo warranto.

---