Quo Warranto is Not Maintainable Against the Post of Vikas Mitra as it is Not a Public Office

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto against Respondent No. 7 (Preety Kumari), alleging she secured her appointment as a Vikas Mitra in Panchayat Lamichaur using forged and fabricated documents, including matriculation marks sheets and caste certificates

The petitioner further sought a Mandamus directing the authorities to appoint him to the said post after removing Respondent No. 7

During the proceedings, the Bihar Vikash Maha Dalit Mission (BMVM) raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of a quo warranto writ for a non-public post

Subsequently, the State informed the court that Respondent No. 7 had already been restrained from working pending a formal enquiry initiated via Letter No. BMVM-1210-01/24-114 dated 14.01.2025

1. Whether a writ of quo warranto can be issued against an individual holding the post of Vikas Mitra

2. Whether the petitioner’s grievance survives in light of the departmental enquiry initiated against the respondent

The court addressed the principle that a writ of quo warranto is only maintainable when the post in question is a "public post" created by statute or the Constitution

the court applied the principle of judicial economy, holding that when administrative action (such as an enquiry and restraining order) has already been initiated to address the grievance, the writ petition may be rendered infructuous

The court first noted the preliminary objection that the post of Vikas Mitra is not a public post, leading the petitioner to abandon the relief of quo warranto

Regarding the allegations of fraud, the State presented evidence (Annexures R/B and R/C) proving that an enquiry into the validity of Respondent No. 7’s documents had already commenced and she was currently restrained from performing her duties

The court reasoned that since the executive machinery was already seized of the matter and had taken interim punitive action, the petitioner’s primary grievance (the removal of an allegedly fraudulent appointee) was being addressed through the proper administrative channel

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the concerned authorities to conclude the enquiry within a reasonable period, preferably within three months. The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the District Magistrate if the enquiry is not concluded within the stipulated timeframe