DR. M.S. PATIL versus GULBARGA UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 10 S.C.R. 232 · Decided: 27-08-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2010] 10 S.C.R. 232 
DR. M.S. PATIL 
v. 
GULBARGA UNIVERSITY AND ORS. 
(<;;ivil Appeal .No. 1483 of 2005) 
AUGUST 27, 2010. 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Service law -
Appointment -
Post of Reader -
Appointment of appellant-general category candidate -
C Challenged to - Case of respondent-reserved category 
candidate that the post was reserved for 'Group B' candidate 
and appointment of appellant was the result of favouritism :-
-Appointment set aside by High Court - However, appellant 
directed to continue on ad;hoc basis_ until appointment of new 
o incumbent to the post ..:.. On appeaf, ·held: Appellant was 
wrongly appointed to a post reserved for 'Group B' category 
- His selection to the post was tainted - In ·se,Y/ce law, 
concepts of adverse posses!?ion or holding over are not there 
- For 17 years, appellant occupied the post which lawfully 
E belonged to someone else - Equitable considerations are 
against him - Appellant continued in that post on basis of the 
direction of StJpreme Court to maintain status quo, thus no 
need to continue ad-hoc arrangement any further- University 
directed to issue fresh Notification to fill up the post. : 
t 
F 
The respondent-University ad~ertised ptists of 
Reader..; In the remarks column of the Notification, the 
said post was reserved for 'Group B' catego.ry. The 
appellant-general category candidate, was s~lected. 
Respondent no.2, a 'Group B' candidate, challenged the 
G appointment of the appellant on the ground that the post 
was reserved for 'Group B' candidate; and that the 
appointment of the appellant was the result of favouritism. 
The Single Judge of the High Court set aside the selection 
and appointment of the appellant as Reader. It directed 
H 
232 
DR. M.S. PATIL v. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY AND 
233 
ORS. 
the University to fill up the post of reader calling for fresh 
A 
applications and to complete the selection within the 
stipulated period. However, the appellant was allowed to 
continue on the post till the fresh selection process was 
completed. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld 
the order passed by the Single Judge of the.High Court. 
B 
Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The facts of the case lead to only one 
conclusion that the appellant was wrongly appointed to 
C 
a post that was reserved for 'Group B' category. The High 
Court also found that the appellant's selection for 
appointment to the post was tainted by the participation 
of the Head of the Department of Kannada, who was 
related to him, in the selection process. [Para 11] [239-C-
D 
D] 
1.2 In service law, there is no place for the concepts 
of adverse possession or holding over. Helped by some 
University authorities and the gratllitous circumstances 
E 
of the interim>orders passed by the ~ourt and the delay 
in final disposal of the matter, the appellant has been 
occupying the post, for all these years that lawfully 
belQnged to someone else. Thus, the equitable 
considerations are actually against him rather than in his 
favour.~ It is noted as to how the appellant was able to 
F 
secure\ the appointment and how he man~ged to 
continue:on the post. ·ey notification 'dated Augus~ 13, 
2004, the·.appellant was discharged from the service of 
the University on the post of Reader in Kannada but' was 
asked to coritinue on ad-hoc basis until the appointment G 
of the new incumbent to the post, on the basis of the 
order of status quo passed by this Court. Thus, his 
position is only ad- hoc till the appointment of the new 
+ ·. 
. 
incumbent and 'in that position he Is continuing on the 
basis of the direction of this Court to maintain status quo. 
H 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010) 10 S.C.R. 
A There is no reason to continue this ad-hoc arrangement 
any further and stand any longer in .the way of the.post.-
being filled up on a regular basis .. [Paras 13) [239-F-H; 
240-A-C] 
1.3 Since the matter has become very old, it would 
B not be reasonable for the University to fill up the post on 
the basis 'of the notification issued in the year 1993. 
Therefore, the University could issue a fresh notification 
to fill up the post. [Para 14) [240-C-D] 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1483 of 2oos. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 02.06.2004 of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in W.A. No. 1303 of 2000. 
o--
Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Ajay Kumar M. (for A.S. Bhasme) 
E 
for the Appellan

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.