Case: The University Of Mysore And Anr Vs. C. D. Govinda Rao And Anr

this connection, the High Court has failed to notice one significant fact that when the Board considered the claims of the respective applicants, it examined them very carefully and actually came to the conclusion that none of them deserved to be appointed a Professor. These recommendations made by the Board clearly show that they considered the relevant factors carefully and ultimately came to the conclusion that appellant No. 2 should be recommended for the post of Reader. Therefore, we are satisfied that the criticism made by the High Court against the Board and its deliberations is not justified.14. It appears that the High Court was also dissatisfied with the conduct of appellant No. 1 and its officers, and in fact, while dealing with the question about the length of the teaching experience of appellant No. 2, the High Court has observed that "the material placed on record is of a doubtful nature characterised by a clear tendency to mislead the Court, if not an actual attempt to do so". The learned Attorney-General has complained that this criticism is not justified. In fact, after the judgment was pronounced, an application was made to the same learned Judges to expunge the criticism made against appellant No. 1, and in support of this application. Mr. Ethirajula Naidu, who was then the Advocate-General and who had argued the matter before the High Court, made an affidavit, showing that appellant No. 1 could not be charged with having attempted to mislead the High Court. Even then, the High Court was not fully satisfied, and so in a judgment delivered by it on the application subsequently made to quash the said observations, the learned Judges observed that they were willing to accept and did accept the assurance given by the learned Advocate-General that there was no actual attempt made to mislead the Court. Even so, they held that the material placed before the Court could or did have a tendency to mislead, and that is the opinion which they thought even after hearing the learned Advocate-General, was well founded, at any rate, not unwarranted.15. This criticism has been made by the High Court because when an affidavit was filed before it by Mr. Thimmaraju, the Gazetted Assistant of appellant No. 1, he produced on June 1, 1961, a statement from the Service Register of appellant No. 2. This extract purported to show that Appellant No. 2 had more than five years teaching experience prescribed by third qualification. The Register was then sent for by the High Court and examined, and it became clear that whereas the first four entries in the statement filed by the deponent were borne out by the said Register, the subsequent eight entries did not appear in that Register. Later when the High Court was moved, after the judgment was pronounced, for expunging the remarks, another document was produced. This purported to be the Gazetted Officers Register, and the statements contained in the extract filed by Thimmaraju appeared in that Register. The explanation given by Appellant No. 1 and the learned Advocate-General was that when appellant No. 2 was a non-gazetted servant, his service register was separately kept; but in regard to Government gazetted servants, a general service Register was kept, and all the statements filed by Mr. Thimmaraju really contained facts taken from the separate service Register of appellant No. 2 when he was a non-gazetted servant, and facts taken from the Government gazetted servants Register, after he became a gazetted servant. It is undoubtedly true that the statement filed by Thimmaraju seems to suggest that all the facts stated in the statement were gathered from service Register of appellant No. 2, and that, strictly, was not accurate at all. Therefore, on the inaccuracy of the statement made by Mr. Thimmaraju, the High Court would have been justified in making an adverse comment; but in considering the question as to whether Thimmaraju or appellant No. 1 on whose behalf he made the affidavit, attempted or intended to mislead the Court, it is necessary to bear in mind other relevant facts. On the question about the length of the teaching career of appellant No. 2, appellant No. 2 had made a detailed affidavit on July 22, 1961. In this affidavit, he had set out the several teaching assignments he had held and the periods during which he held them, and these clearly show that his teaching experience of the prescribed character is much more than five years which is the minimum prescribed. It is remarkable that though the respondent purported to make a rejoinder to the affidavit filed by appellant No. 2, the details given by appellant No. 2 in regard to his teaching experience have not been specially or categorically traversed by the respondent. Besides, it is significant that the Government gazetted officers Register, which was produced before the High Court later, amply bears out the facts in the statement filed by Thimmaraju. Therefore, one thing is clear that the material fact about the length of the teaching experience of appellant No. 2 is fully established by the affidavit of appellant No. 2 and even by the gazetted officers Register which was later produced, and so, it seems to us that the High Court need not have been so severe on appellant No. 1 when it observed that the material produced by appellant No. 1 had a tendency to mislead the Court, if not an actual attempt to do so. It is undoubtedly true that Thimmaraju should have looked into the record more carefully and should have stated clearly that the facts stated in the statement filed by him were taken partly from the individual service register of appellant No. 2 and partly from the Register which is kept as a general Register for gazetted servants in that State. Therefore, we think there is some substance in the contention made by the learned Attorney-General that the harsh criticism made by the High Court against appellant No. 1 is not fully justified.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. The judgment of the High Court does not indicate that the attention of the High Court was drawn to the technical nature of the writ of quo warranto which was claimed by the respondent in the present proceedings, and the conditions which had to be satisfied before a writ could issue in such proceedings.In the present case, it does not appear that the attention of the Court was drawn to this aspect of the matter. The judgment does not show that any statutory provisions or rules were placed before the Court and that in making the appointment of appellant No. 2, these statutory provisions had been contravened. The mader appears to have been argued before the High Court on the assumption that if the appointment of appellant No. 2 was shown to be inconsistent with the qualifications as they were advertised by appellant No. 1, that itself would justify the issue of a writ of quo warranto. In the present proceedings, we do not propose to consider and decide whether this assumption was well founded or not.We propose to deal with the appeals on the basis that it may have been open to the High Court to quash the appointment of appellant No. 2 even if it was shown that one or the other of the qualifications prescribed by the advertisement published by appellant No. 1 was not satisfied bythough some reference was made to the ordinances, no attempt was made to show when the ordinances came into force and no arguments appear to have been urged on that account. The judgment delivered by the High Court in the present proceedings is an elaborate judgment and we think it would be legitimate to assume that it does not refer to the statutory rules and ordinances for the simple reason that neither party relied on them and the High Court had, therefore, no occasion to examine them. In any case, we do not think it would be open to the respondent to take a ground about the effect of the statutory rules and ordinances for the first time in appeal. The petition, which he originally filed, when read with the affidavit made by him, does support this view and unambiguously shows that he confined his attack against trio validity of the appointment of appellant No. 2 solely to the ground that appellant No 2 did not satisfy the qualifications prescribed by the notification by which applications had been called for by appellant No. 1. That is the basis on which the High Court has dealt with this matter and that is the basis on which we propose to deal with it.Thus, it is clear that substantially the High Court decided to quash the appointment of appellant No. 2 on the ground that it was plain that he did not satisfy the first qualification. In this connection, the High Court has also criticised the report made by the Board and has observed that the Members of the Board did not appear to have applied their minds to the question which they were called upon to consider.12. In our opinion, in coming to the conclusion that appellant. No. 2 did not satisfy the first qualification, the High Court is plainly in error. The judgment shows that the learned judges concentrated on the question as to whether a candidate obtaining 50 per cent marks could be said to have secured a high Second Class Degree, and if the relevant question had to be determined solely by reference to this aspect of the matter, the conclusion of the High Court would have been beyond reproach. But what the High Court has failed to notice is the fact that the first qualification consists of two parts - the first part is : a high Second Class Masters Degree of an Indian University, and the second part is : its equivalent which is an equivalent qualification of a foreign University. The High Court does not appear to have considered the question as to whether it would be appropriate for the High Court to differ from the opinion of the Board when it was quite likely that the Board may have taken the view that the Degree of Master of Arts of the Durham University which appellant No. 2 had obtained, was equivalent to a high Second Class Masters Degree of an Indian University. This aspect of the questions (sic) purely to an academic matter and courts would naturally, hesitate to express a definite opinion, particularly, when it appears that the Board of experts was satisfied that appellant No.2 fulfilled the first qualification. If only the attention of the High Court had been drawn to the equivalent furnished in the first qualification, we have no doubt that it would not have held that the Board had acted capriciously in expressing the opinion that appellant No. 2 satisfied all the qualifications, including the first qualification. As we have already observed though the High Court felt some difficulty, about the two remaining qualifications, the High Court has not rested its decision on any definite finding that these qualification also had not been satisfied. On reading the first qualification, the position appears to be very simple; but unfortunately, since the equivalent qualification specified by cl : (a) was apparently not brought to the notice of the High Court, it has failed to take that aspect of the matter into account. On that aspect of the matter, it may follow that the Masters Degree of the Durham University secured by appellant No. 2, would satisfy the first qualification and even the second. Besides, it appears that appellant No. 2 has to his credit published works which by themselves would satisfy the second qualification. Therefore, there is no doubt that the High Court was in error in coming to the conclusion that since appellant No. 2 could not be said to have secured a high Second Class Master Degree of on Indian University he did not satisfy the first qualification. It is plain that Masters Degree of the Durham University. which, appellant No. 2 has obtained, can be and must have been taken by the Board to be equivalent to a high Second Class Masters Degree of in Indian University, and that means the first qualification is satisfied by appellant No. 2. That being so, we must hold that the High Court was in error in issuing a writ of quo warranto, quashing the appointment of appellant No.is undoubtedly true that Thimmaraju should have looked into the record more carefully and should have stated clearly that the facts stated in the statement filed by him were taken partly from the individual service register of appellant No. 2 and partly from the Register which is kept as a general Register for gazetted servants in that State. Therefore, we think there is some substance in the contention made by the learned Attorney-General that the harsh criticism made by the High Court against appellant No. 1 is not fully justified.