' This petition seeks issuance of writ of quo warranto against Respondents No, 4 to 6 on the ground that their reinstatement was illegal, void and without jurisdiction.
2. Brief facts of the case, according to the petition, are that Respondents No, 4 to 6 were appointed in Punjab Curriculum and Textbook Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in BS-17 by the then Chairman on the recommendation of Minister of Education. Respondents No, 4 to 6 were subsequently removed from service vide order dated 16.10.2000 which was challenged through Writ Petition No 21448 of 2000. Some other employees (28 in number working in BS-1 to BS-15) of the Board who were also dismissed from service also filed Writ Petition No, 21492 of 2000. Both the writ petitions were decided through a consolidated judgment. While Writ Petition No, 21492 of 2000 was allowed, Writ Petition No 21448 of 2000 filed by Respondents No 4 to 6 was dismissed with the following observations: ' The case of the petitioners in Writ Petition No, 21448 of 2000 is, however, distinguishable than the case of the writ petitioners in Writ Petition No, 21492 of 2000 inasmuch as that the petitioners in the former writ petition were appointed in BS-17 for which the appointing authority was the Beard and in their case the Board neither issued their orders for appointment nor had approved these.
Therefore, their appointments not having been made by the competent authority were void, ab- initio, I am not inclined to interfere in their case.
' Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petition, Respondents No, 4 to 6 filed an appeal bearing CP No, 2259-L of 2001. The Board also filed CP No, 2215-L of 2001. Both of these appeals were decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 26.07.2001 whereby CP No, 2215-L of 2001 was allowed and Writ Petition No, 21492 of 2000 was dismissed and CP No, 2259-L of 2001 filed by Respondents No, 4 to 6 was dismissed. However, notwithstanding the dismissal of CP No, 2259-L of 2001, the then Chief Minister issued directives for reinstatement of Respondents No, 4 to 6 in the Board.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the reinstatement orders of Respondents No, 4 to 6 violated the judicial orders/judgments for which there was no warrant in law and as such prayed that their appointments be declared to be null and void. The learned counsel for Respondents No 4 to 6 on the other hand argued the respondents were validly appointed/reinstated to their posts in accordance with law and rules on the subject.
4. The reason why Writ Petition No 21448 of 2000 and CP No, 2259-L of 2001 were dismissed was that the appointment of Respondents No, 4 to 6 was found to have been made without previous sanction of the Board which was the .Appointing authority for employees in the Board for BS-17 and above. The learned counsel for Respondents No, 4 to 6 while arguing the case categorically mentioned that Respondents No, 4 to 6 were not appointed/reinstated by the Board. This Court accordingly passed the following order on 19.03.2015: ' Both learned counsels for the petitioner as well as Respondents No, 4 to 6 have argued their case.
The controversy boils down to the fact whether the defect in the appointment of Respondents No, 4 to 6 after the termination of litigation before the Supreme Court was subsequently rectified by the Board or not? Learned Assistant Advocate General is directed to seek instructions from the Respondents No, 1 to 3.
5. Today, the counsels for the respondents have placed on record agenda Item No, 5 for meeting of the Board held on 16.10.2004 which shows that the Board had duly approved the reinstatement of Respondents No, 4 to 6. It is thus clear that the basis on which decisions in Writ Petition No, 21448 of 2000 and CP No, 2259-L of 2001 were rendered is no longer available to the petitioners. The petitioners were validly appointed/reinstated in service by the Board.
6. The learned counsel for Respondents No, 4 to 6 furthermore referred to an order rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CP No, 514-L of 2008 titled "Anjum Mumtaz v. Punjab Text Book Board". This case was decided in favor of the employee of the Board by relying upon the example of Respondents No, 4 to 6. The operative part of order passed in CP No, 514 of 2008 reads as under: Respondent No, 1 could not be treated with discrimination qua the other employees who were reinstated having case of similar nature, facts and circumstances. The case of Miss Saman Jamil and Rana Tariq Mehmood, is the example, who were holding post of Grade 17 and were reinstated, whose case was similar to that of Respondent No,
1. Therefore, no distinction have been found to case of the respondent as against those afore mentioned persons. As regard the question of eligibility, suffice it to say Respondent No, 1, when appointed, was found eligible and thereafter her appointment was regularized after about 7 months. Therefore, at the stage when she had served the department for about 5 years, her ouster /termination could not be made without any reasonable and justifiable cause.
' It is thus clear that defect, if any, in the appointment of Respondents No, 4 to 6 was subsequently cured when their reinstatement was approved by the Board, which was admittedly the appointing authority.
7. In a writ of quo warranto the petitioner has to show that the respondent (a) is holding a public office and (b) he is holding the public office without the authority of law. The scope of the writ of quo warranto was discussed in Pakistan Tobacco Board and another v. Tahir Raza and others 2007 SCM R 97 wherein the following excerpt from The University of Mysore and another v. C.D. Govinda Rao and another AIR 1965 SC 491 was cited with approval.
' Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceedings afford a judicial enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive public office. Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceedings affords a judicial enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the inquiry leads to the finding that he holder of the office has no valid title to it, the issue a- the writ of quo warrant ousted him from that office. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments 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 public office and is held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appoint of the said alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not. (Emphasis supplied)
'It is clear from the above passage that the public office must have been usurped by the person occupying it in contravention of some law. In other words, in order for a writ of quo warranto to succeed it has to be established that there is no sanction/authority of law behind I ' the appointment of the holder of public officer. The appointment/ reinstatement of Respondents No, 4 to 6, as stated earlier, was done by the Board in accordance with the rules and, therefore, it cannot be said that they are holding office without any legal authority.
8. Although latches should not ordinarily be a factor in deciding a writ of quo warranto yet this Court cannot help but point out that the reinstatement order of Respondents No, 4 to 6 was approved by the Board in its meeting held on 16.10.2004 and the petitioners approached this Court after a lapse of almost eleven years. This is inexcusable delay on the part of the petitioners. In Aziz- ur-Rehman Khan Meo v. Government of Sindh and another 2004 SCM R 1299, it was held that "Quo warranto is not issued as a matter of course. The Court can and will enquire into the conduct and motive of the relator. , No precise rule can be laid down for the exercise of discretion by the Court in granting or refusing information in the nature of quo warranto. All the circumstances of the case taken together must govern the discretion of the Court." In the opinion of this Court, the inexplicable and unexplained delay of eleven years in taking remedial measures by the petitioners is also fatal to this petition.
9. In the result, this writ petition, founded principally on the remedy of quo warranto, fails being devoid of any merit.