M S PATIL Vs. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case sadly illustrates how interim orders passed by the court coupled with judicial delays enure to the great advantage of the wrong doer and in the end make him bold in the false belief that with the passage of time the equity was now firmly on his side. The appellant in this case was wrongly appointed to the post of Reader in the Department of Kannada in Gulbarga University. On the basis of the interim orders passed by the Court and evidently helped by the concerned authorities in the University he has been able to hold on to the post now for over seventeen and a half years.

(2.) The manner in which the case has progressed to reach the present stage may be stated thus. On March 30, 1992 the Gulbarga University, Gulbarga invited applications for appointment to different posts. One of the advertised posts was of Reader in Kannada. In the remarks column of the notification, it was clearly shown as reserved for Group B category. It needs to be stated here that a plain copy of the notification is enclosed with the paper book as part of Annexure PI. In the remarks column of the enclosed copy, the letters "GM" are shown against the post in question, indicating that it was open to the general merit category. In order to show that it was incorrect Mr. L.R. Singh, counsel for respondent No. 2 produced before us a Xerox copy of the notification from which it clearly appears that the post was reserved for a candidate of Group B category. Thus, confronted the lame plea on behalf of the appellant was that the mistake in the copy (Annexure P1) was due to a typing error. We do not wish to proceed any further in the matter except to say that a typing error materially affecting the facts of the case to the benefit of the party committing the mistake has to be viewed with a good deal of suspicion.

(3.) In response to the notification, 11 applications were made for the post in question. Only 3 applicants were from Group B category and the rest were from different other categories; the appellant is from the general merit category. According to the appellant, the Board of Appointment did not find any of the Group B candidates eligible or suitable and on the basis of the interview held on June 5, 1992 he was selected for appointment. His selection was approved by the Syndicate on February 1, 1993 and a notification for his appointment was issued on February 4, 1993 in pursuance of which he joined the post.