Irregular Contractual Appointment of doctor

531 votes

In case, you are aggrieved by the selection process you can file mandamus along with certiorari to declare such appointment invalid and to conduct a selection process again. You can file quo warranto if you don't have any interest in the selection process and you just want to challenge the process. Here, relief will be restricted to the rejection of the appointment and removal of such appointed person from the office.

Advocate Aditya Kumar LawRato

678 votes

A writ of quo warranto is maintainable only when a person is holding a public office of a substantive nature without legal authority. Applying this principle to your facts: Quo warranto can be filed against contractual appointments in government hospitals only if the post is a public office and the appointment violates statutory rules, not merely administrative guidelines. Courts draw a clear distinction between (a) appointments made contrary to statutory recruitment rules and (b) appointments that may be irregular but are within executive discretion. If the advertisement expressly prescribed essential experience criteria, and the selected doctor does not meet those criteria, and no relaxation clause existed either in the advertisement or in the governing rules, then the appointment is vulnerable. Courts have consistently held that essential qualifications cannot be waived unless the governing rules permit relaxation. Any post-selection relaxation, especially without disclosure in the advertisement, is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, if the appointment is purely contractual, time-bound, and not to a cadre post created under statute, courts are cautious. Many High Courts have held that quo warranto does not lie against purely contractual engagements unless the post itself is statutory and public in character. The fact that the selection appears predetermined strengthens the challenge, but predetermination alone is insufficient unless you demonstrate illegality, not merely unfairness. On anonymity: quo warranto is a public interest remedy. The petitioner need not show personal grievance or locus standi. Courts permit such petitions even where the petitioner is a third party acting in public interest, provided the pleadings are based on verifiable material and not speculation. Before filing, you should ensure: • The post is a public office • Eligibility criteria were mandatory and statutory in nature • The selected candidate clearly lacks the essential qualification • No statutory relaxation power exists or was validly exercised If these conditions are satisfied, a writ of quo warranto is legally maintainable. Otherwise, the court may dismiss it at the threshold, suggesting alternative remedies such as a writ of certiorari or administrative review. In short, quo warranto is a strong but narrow weapon—effective only when illegality is apparent on the face of the appointment itself.

Advocate Yuganshu Sharma LawRato

726 votes

Yes, quo warranto is maintainable even against a contractual appointment if the post is a public office and the appointment violates mandatory statutory or advertised eligibility conditions. If the doctor does not meet the essential experience criteria and no relaxation clause exists, the appointment is illegal, not a mere irregularity.

Advocate Adarsh Kumar LawRato

519 votes

quo warranto can be filed against the government and not against the doctor. the doctor just submitted what was asked by the government. in such cases the guilty party is not the doctor but the govt which has taken such an appointment.

LawRato LawRato

949 votes

, if you can demonstrate that the appointment was predetermined, lacked essential qualifications, and violated recruitment norms, a writ of quo warranto is maintainable and the High Court can declare the appointment void.

Advocate Madhvi Chopra LawRato