Option 1: The office must be a public office. This means that the office in question must be a position of authority or responsibility in the public sector. It cannot be a private or personal office.

Option 2: The office must be created by the statute or by the Constitution itself. This condition ensures that the office has a legal basis and is recognized by the law. It cannot be an office that is established through informal means or by individuals without proper legal authority.

Option 3: The office must not be a substantive one. This means that the office in question should not have substantial duties and responsibilities. It should not involve decision-making powers or the ability to affect the rights and interests of others. This condition helps to distinguish between offices that require accountability through a writ of quo warranto and offices that do not.

Option 4: There has been a contravention of the Constitution or a statute in appropriating such person to that office. This condition is necessary for the issue of a writ of quo warranto. It means that there must be a violation of the Constitution or a statute in appointing or assigning a person to the office in question. This condition ensures that the writ is used to correct legal injustices.

Based on the given options, option 3