G MARULASIDDAIAH Vs. T G MDDAPPARADHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by special leave the appellant challenges the decision of the Mysore High Court quashing his appointment as a University Grants professor in Sanskrit by the Board of Appointments on the sole ground of non-compliance with Rule 5 of the Supplementary Rules promulgated under the Mysore University Act, 1956. That rule provides:

(2.) The facts are as follows: The appellant and the main contesting respondent have the same academic qualifications. The appellant joined the university as a lecturer in 1945 and he was appointed a temporary Reader in Sanskrit under the University Grants Commission Scheme which was distinct from other University appointments. He was appointed a permanent Reader in the University under the said Scheme in April 1960. The first respondent had joined the University as a lecturer in 1938 i. e. seven years before the appellant. He was appointed a Reader under the university Grants Scheme in January 1961 i. e. several months after the appellant. In December 1965 the appellant was placed as the Head of the Department of Sanskrit. It appears that in 1967 an appointment had to be made as Professor in the University Grants Scheme, the top position in the department. The claims of the appellant, the first respondent and two other persons were considered by the Board of Appointments. They were also interviewed by the Board and on June 9, 1967 the appellant was given the said appointment. This was later approved of by the Chancellor of the University on June 29, 1967.

(3.) The first respondent filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the appointment of the appellant under Art. 226 of the Constitution on various grounds but the infraction of rule 5 set forth above was not one of them. The High Court, however, on an application made for the purpose allowed the ground to be raised but the learned single judge dismissed the writ petition. The first respondent filed an appeal which was heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. The High Court turned down all but the contention based on rule 5 above and took the view that the said rule was a mandatory provision and it was incumbent on the Board of appointments to state in writing why the first respondent although he had longer teaching experience was passed over in favour of the appellant before us. According to the Division Bench the appointment of the appellant become invalid for this non-compliance of rule 5 by the Board of appointments. The order of appointment was quashed by the High Court with a direction that the University should make an appointment in accordance with law. This judgment was rendered on April 15, 1969.