417/63 .
K. Daphtary, Attorney General for India, B. R. Ethiraulu Naidu, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the appellant in G.A. No.
1 from proceeding to fill the post, but since the post had already been filled up, he modified his claim and asked for a writ of quo warranto against appellant No.
Four applications were received for the posts of Professors and Reader in English and these Applicants were interviewed by the Board on June 8, 1960.
1 under s. 26 1 received the approval of the Chancellor on January 22, 1960, but we do number know even today when they were published in the Gazette.
K. Govindaraulu and R. Gopalakrishnan for the appellant in C.A.No.
These Specialists were Professor P. E. Dastoor of the Delhi University and Professor L. D. Murphy of Madras.
418/63.
It appears that the statutory rules framed by appellant No.
Meanwhile, even before he assumed charge of his office, the respondent had filed his present petition on October 15, 1960, and he had claimed an injunction against appellant No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 7, 1962, of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
23 of 1956 , as it then stood, a Board of Appointments was numberinated, companysisting of the Vice Chan cellor and two Specialists in English.
Thereupon the University and Anniah Gowda by separate applications moved this Court for special leave, and on special leave being granted to them, they have brought the two present appeals before us Civil Appeals 417 418 of 63 .
That is how the main dispute which arose between the two appellants and the respondent was in regard to the validity of the appointment of appellant No.
417 and 418 of 1963.
This report was in due companyrse approved by the Chancellor on October 3, 1960, and after he was appointed to the post of Reader, appellant No.
1 were regulated by the ordinances and rules framed under the Mysore University Act.
In this judgment, we will describe the University and, Anniah Gowda as Appellants 1 and 2 respectively.
August 26, 1963.
K. Venkataranga Iyengar, I. B. Dadachanji O.C. Mathur, Ravinder Narain, for respondents.
The Board had the advantage of companysulting Professor C.D. Narasimhiah, Principal, Maharajas College, Mysore.
In regard to the filling of the post of Reader under the U.G.C. Scheme in the grade of 500 25 800, the Board, after companysidering all aspects of the case, came to the companyclusion that appellant No.
Amongst them were included the post of Professor of English and the Reader in English.
226 of the Constitution.
This was disputed by the respondent, and in that companynection, he alleged in a vague manner that all the appointments made by appellant No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. The petition from which these appeals by special leave arise was filed by the respondent, C.D. Govinda Rao, in the Mysore High Court under art.
1 published an advertisement calling for applications for sit posts of Professors and six posts of Readers.
Preference will be given to candidates who have had experience in teaching and organization of research and have also done advanced research work.
By that petition, he prayed that a writ of quo warranto be issued, calling upon Anniah Gowda to show cause as to under what authority he was holding the post of a Research Reader in English in the Central College, Bangalore.
Similarly, the ordinances framed were approved by the Chancellor on the same day, but we do number know when they came into force.
Having made these allegations, numberattempt was made in the High Court to produce these ordinances and to show when they came into force.
2 assumed charge on October 31, 1960.
It appears that on 31st July 1959, appellant No.
1 by the University Grants Commission.
The University and Anniah Gowda, then, moved the High Court for a certificate to appeal to this Court against its judgement, but the application was rejected.
1197 of 1960.
Then, he alleged that the ordinances made in this regard by the Senate in their meeting held on August 19, 1959, were approved by the Chancellor in his letter dated January 22, 1960.
The University of Mysore and Anniah Gowda disputed the validity of the claim made by the respondent.
To his petition, he impleaded the University of Mysore by its Registrar, and Anniah Gowda as the opposite party.
On these pleadings, evidence was led by both the parties in respect of their respective companytentions in the form of affidavits.
The posts of Professor and Reader had been advertised in pursuance of a grant made to appellant No.
That is why he wanted the appointment of Anniah Gowda to be quashed, and he asked for a writ, directing the University to appoint him in that post.
