<p>A bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha said: “This case sadly illustrates how interim orders passed by the court coupled with judicial delays ensure 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 now firmly on his side.”<br /><br />The bench directed the university to dismiss the services of Dr M S Patil, a reader in Kannada language, immediately and recruit a new reader in his place within six months. The apex court also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on Patil.<br /><br />Patil, a general merit category candidate, was appointed to the post, which is reserved for the Group B category, by alleged manipulation of the advertisement. Talking on the error in the advertisement published by the university on March 30, 1992, the judgement said: “We do not wish to proceed any further in the matter except to say that a typing error materially affecting the facts of the case to the benefit of the party committing the misstate has to be viewed with a good deal of suspicion.’’<br /><br />The court mentioned that though there were 11 applicants, including three from the Group B category, Patil was selected to the post by ignoring the fact that the post was reserved in the original notification.<br /><br />“The (Karnataka) High Court has 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. In those facts and circumstances, all that is needed is to dismiss the appeal (of Patil) without further ado,” said the judgment released here on Thursday.<br /><br />The bench dismissed the argument of Patil who requested the apex court to allow him to continue in the post as he had been there for 17 years and that he had tendered his resignation from a college where he was working as a lecturer. The judges observed: “We are unimpressed. In service law there is no place for the concepts of adverse possession or holding over”.</p>
<p>A bench of Justices Aftab Alam and R M Lodha said: “This case sadly illustrates how interim orders passed by the court coupled with judicial delays ensure 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 now firmly on his side.”<br /><br />The bench directed the university to dismiss the services of Dr M S Patil, a reader in Kannada language, immediately and recruit a new reader in his place within six months. The apex court also imposed a fine of Rs 50,000 on Patil.<br /><br />Patil, a general merit category candidate, was appointed to the post, which is reserved for the Group B category, by alleged manipulation of the advertisement. Talking on the error in the advertisement published by the university on March 30, 1992, the judgement said: “We do not wish to proceed any further in the matter except to say that a typing error materially affecting the facts of the case to the benefit of the party committing the misstate has to be viewed with a good deal of suspicion.’’<br /><br />The court mentioned that though there were 11 applicants, including three from the Group B category, Patil was selected to the post by ignoring the fact that the post was reserved in the original notification.<br /><br />“The (Karnataka) High Court has 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. In those facts and circumstances, all that is needed is to dismiss the appeal (of Patil) without further ado,” said the judgment released here on Thursday.<br /><br />The bench dismissed the argument of Patil who requested the apex court to allow him to continue in the post as he had been there for 17 years and that he had tendered his resignation from a college where he was working as a lecturer. The judges observed: “We are unimpressed. In service law there is no place for the concepts of adverse possession or holding over”.</p>
