Quo warranto lies only against substantive public offices involving the delegation of sovereign governmental functions.

The petitioner, a retired Supervisor of the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation (KTDC), filed a writ of quo warranto against the 6th and 7th respondents.

The respondents were appointed as Executive Trainees in 1991 and eventually promoted to Managerial grades.

The petitioner alleged that at the time of their initial recruitment, the respondents lacked the requisite qualifications (Pre-degree and a Diploma in Hotel Management) and that their appointments were obtained through misrepresentation.

A 2024 Finance Inspection Department report supported the allegation of irregularity.

The respondents contended that they had disclosed their "results awaited" status during the interview, had served for 33 years with unblemished records, and had been cleared by multiple prior vigilance and departmental enquiries.

1. Whether the posts of Executive Trainee and Manager in the KTDC constitute a "public office" amenable to a writ of quo warranto?

2. Whether the appointment of the 6th and 7th respondents was in violation of statutory rules sufficient to warrant judicial ouster?

The court applied the established principle that a writ of quo warranto is a limited remedy used to oust a usurper from a "public office," provided the office is of a substantive nature, created by statute or Constitution, and involves the delegation of sovereign functions.

Relying on University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, the court noted that the petitioner must satisfy the court that the office is a "public office" held without legal authority.

Per B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply, the office must involve a portion of the sovereign power of the Government.

Following Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of W.B., the court reiterated that Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is generally not maintainable in service matters except for quo warranto.

The Court examined the nature of the KTDC and the specific posts held by the respondents.

It noted that KTDC was incorporated as a company limited by shares under the Companies Act to promote tourism and handicrafts, which are commercial activities.

Applying the "sovereign function test," the court reasoned that while KTDC might be an "instrumentality of the State" for Article 12 purposes, not every employee holds a "public office".

The court found that the positions of Executive Trainee and Manager are contractual and regulated by internal service rules rather than direct statutory provisions.

Since the respondents do not exercise sovereign executive, legislative, or judicial powers on behalf of the State, their posts do not qualify as "public offices".

Consequently, the fundamental prerequisite for issuing a writ of quo warranto—the existence of a public office—was absent.

The court held that the posts were contractual and commercial in nature, lacking the necessary delegation of sovereign power.

However, the court noted that this judgment does not fetter the rights of the KTDC Board or the State Government to proceed with internal appeals or administrative actions regarding the respondents' qualifications.

No order as to costs was made.