Can the jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto be employed to vindicate the personal grievance of a candidate unsuccessful in a selection process?

Paragraph 9The intra-court appeal of the appellants too did not succeed, but on slightly different grounds. The Division Bench held the appeal to be not maintainable. In arriving at such conclusion, the Division Bench adverted to the merit list prepared pursuant to the selection process and noticed that none of the appellants figured amongst the top three candidates who had been recommended for appointment. On such finding, it was held that the appellants lacked the requisite locus standi to assail the appointment of the sixth respondent. The Division Bench further held that the appellants could not invoke the extraordinary remedy of a writ of quo warranto. Placing reliance on the decisions of this Court in A.N. Shastri v. State of Punjab[^11], R.K. Jain v. Union of India [^12], Dr B. Singh v. Union of India[^13] and B. Srinivasa Reddy v. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees Association[^14], delineating the scope and ambit of such a writ, the Division Bench observed that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo warranto cannot be employed as a vehicle for vindication of personal grievances arising out of a selection process in which the appellants are unsuccessful. Since the challenge was, in substance, mounted by candidates who had failed to secure selection on merit and were seeking redress of their individual claims, the essential ingredients for issuance of a writ of quo warranto were held to be absent.