Article 226 did not leave the Calcutta High Court powerless to correct a university selection merely because the challenged post might not support a writ of quo warranto. Upholding the setting aside of the appointment, the Division Bench said a writ court may mould relief against a fraudulent or illegal process in the larger public interest.
Justices Rajasekhar Mantha and Anuj Singh dismissed two appeals by Maheswar Malo Das concerning his appointment as Development and Planning Officer at Kazi Nazrul University.
“It can mould relief in larger public interest.”
— Para 14
Why it matters. Quo warranto asks by what authority a person holds a public office and ordinarily depends on the office meeting that legal character. The judgment holds that failure of that particular remedy does not erase the High Court’s broader constitutional power, especially where an unsuccessful candidate has also sought mandamus, a command to perform a public duty.
Marks the record could not support
The university advertised the post on 13 January 2019 and received 56 applications. The Single Judge found that the appellant had been shortlisted with 20.4 marks against a PhD qualification he did not possess. He also received nine out of ten for information and communication technology despite lacking the stated experience or training, and 36 out of 40 under domain knowledge and interview performance.
The appellant had also participated in the shortlisting exercise and forwarded the shortlisted names to the Vice-Chancellor. The Division Bench held that documents supported the Single Judge’s finding of gross impropriety, corruption and nepotism in the selection.
The judgment
The court accepted the general rule that quo warranto concerns a public office and that the challenger need not show personal standing. But the second writ petitioner, Ashim Kr. Biswas, had participated in the selection and specifically sought mandamus. The authorities on the limits of quo warranto therefore did not answer his case.
M.A.T. 870 of 2024 and M.A.T. 1488 of 2024 were dismissed with all pending applications and without costs. The Single Judge’s order setting aside Maheswar Malo Das’s selection as Development and Planning Officer therefore remains in force.
“It is equally well-settled that a person seeking a writ of quo warranto need not have any locus of being an affected party for challenging the appointment in question.”
— Para 10
“The finding of the Single Bench of gross impropriety in the selection process is supported by the documents on record.”
— Para 19