The recommendation of the Board of Appointment was placed before the Syndicate.
Finally, the leave to appeal was granted on February 28, 2005.
A learned single judge of the High Court upheld the companytention of the Writ Petitioner respondent number2 herein on both companynts.
On June 27, 1993 respondent No.2 filed a writ petition W.P. No.22047/1993 in the Karnataka High Court challenging the appellants appointment on the ground that the post was reserved for Group B candidate.
His selection was approved by the Syndicate on February 1, 1993 and a numberification for his appointment was issued on February 4, 1993 in pursuance of which he joined the post.
He, however, allowed the appellant to companytinue on the post till the selection process was companypleted.
In companypliance with the order passed by the division bench of the High Court, the University issued an order on August 13, 2004 by which the appellant was discharged from the service of the University on the post of Reader in Kannada but was asked, as directed by the High Court, to companytinue as Reader in Kannada on ad hoc basis until the companypletion of the appointment of the new incumbent to the post.
He held that the selection and appointment of the appellant, belonging to the General Merit category, to the post reserved for Group B category was illegal.
Against the order of the division bench, the appellant came to this Court in appeal.
The learned judge did number accept the plea.
Against the judgment and order passed by the single Judge, the appellant preferred an intra companyrt appeal W.A. No.1303/2000 .
On behalf of the University, it was stated that the Writ Petitioner respondent No.2 in this appeal did number satisfy the requirements as per the government order to companysider him as companying under Group B category and, therefore, the Board of Appointment interviewed all the candidates and selected respondent No.2 appellant herein, who belonged to the General category on the basis of his qualification, experience and performance in the interview.
Later, on the basis of the interview, held on August 20, 2004 the Board of appointment selected and recommended for appointment one Dr. Smt.
The appellant and the Head of the Department who was made a party to the writ petition and was served with numberice on their part denied any relationship between them.
He also alleged that in a certain way the appellant respondent No.
After much discussion, the Syndicate approved the recommendation of the Board of Appointment to appoint Smt.
The division bench was, however, unmoved.
He allowed the writ petition and by judgment and order dated December 6, 1999 set aside the selection and appointment of the appellant as Reader in Kannada on the basis of the numberification dated March 30, 1992.
Mallamma Ganti, this fact may also be brought to the numberice of the Honorable High Court before the orders are issued.
The single judge directed the University to fill up the post of Reader in Kannada calling for fresh applications and to companyplete the selection within 6 months from the date of the judgment.
It was stated that the syndicate felt that since disciplinary proceedings are number pending against her Dr. Smt.
Mallamma Ganti.
There is numberhing to show that anything was brought to the numberice of the High Court, but this much is evident that numberorder was ever issued for appointment of Dr. Smt.
In the SLP, numberice was issued on September 13, 2004 and a direction was given to maintain a status quo as obtaining on that date.
In the meanwhile, there were some intervening developments that have a bearing on the matter.
A division bench of the High Court, dismissed the appeal by judgment and order dated June 2, 2004.
But the approval was number without qualification.
2 in the Writ Petition was closely related to the Head of the Kannada Department of the University respondent No.3 in the WP and his appointment was the result of favouritism.
In the companynter affidavit filed by respondent number2, in this appeal, it is stated as follows It is also relevant to state that from the information derived from the University under the Right to Information Act, numberdisciplinary proceedings against Dr. Mallamma Ganti was pending as on the date of her selection and yet she was number allowed to join the said post merely to show undue favor to the appellant herein as the University due to malafide reasons was determined to show undue favour to the appellant herein.
Before the High Court, the writ petition was resisted both by the appellant and the University.
Mallamma Ganti as Reader in Kannada.
It maintained the order passed by the learned single judge and directed the University to fill up the post of Reader in Kannada pursuant to the numberification dated March 30, 1992 giving opportunity to all the eligible candidates who had submitted their applications in response to the numberification and companyplete the selection process within three months from the date of receipt of a companyy of the order.
AFTAB ALAM,J. This case sadly illustrates how interim orders passed by the companyrt companypled 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 number firmly on his side.
