PETITIONER: THE UNIVERSITY OF MYSORE AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: C. D. GOVINDA RAO AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/08/1963 BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SUBBARAO, K. WANCHOO, K.N. AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA MUDHOLKAR, J.R. CITATION: 1965 AIR 491 1964 SCR (4) 576 CITATOR INFO : F 1980 SC2141 (17) F 1990 SC1402 (32) ACT: Writs-Quo Warranto, Scope of-Appointment of Reader by Board of Appointments of Mysore University-Constitution, Art. 226- Jurisdiction of High Court to interfere. HEADNOTE: The University of Mysore, Appellant no. 1, advertised inviting applications for 6 posts of Professors and 6 posts of Rcaders. Among them were included the post of a Professor of English and of a Reader in English. Candidates for the post of Reader were required to possess (a) a first or high second class Master's Degree of an Indian University in the subject; (b) a Research Degree of Doctorate standard or published work of a high standard and (c) experience of teaching post-graduate classes for 10 years in case of Professors and 5 years in case of Readers. Anniah Gowda, appellant no. 2, was selected by a Board of Appointment which was constituted to examine the fitness of the several applicants and he was appointed a Reader in English in the Central College, 'Bangalore. 576 C. D. Govinda Rao, respondent, filed an application in the Mysore High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution in which he prayed that a writ of quo warranto be issued calling upon appellant no. 2 to show cause under what authority he was holding the post of a Reader in English. He also prayed for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or direction calling upon appellant no. 1 to appoint him Reader. His contention was that the appointment of Anniah Gowda was illegal in the face of the prescribed qualifications. The High Court set aside the appointment of Anniah Gowda on the ground that he did not satisfy the first qualification which required "that he must possess either a first or a high second class Master's degree of an Indian University" as he had secured just 50.2 per cent marks while the minimum required for a second class was 50 per cent. As regards the second and third qualifications, the High Court did not make a finding against Anniah Gowda. The appellants came to this Court by special leave. Held : (i) The decision of the High Court was incorrect in as much as the High Court did not take into consideration the Degree of Master of Arts of the Durham University obtained by Anniah Gowda. It is true that Anniah Gowda did not possess a high second class degree of an Indian University but he did possess the alternative qualification of Master of Arts of a foreign University. The High Court was in error in issuing a writ of quo waranto quashing the appointment of appellant no. 2. (ii) Boards of appointments are nominated by the Universities and when,recommendations made by them and the appointments following on them are challenged before the courts, normally, the courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts unless there are allegations of malafides against them. Normally, it is wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the courts generally can be. What the High Court should have considered in this case was whether the appointment made by the Chancellor had contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance and while doing so, the High Court should have shown due regard to the opinion expressed by the Board of experts and its recommendations on which the Chancellor had acted. The High -Court should not have thought that the Board was acting like a quasi judicial tribunal, deciding disputes referred to it for decision. It should not have applied tests which are applicable in the case of writ of certian; The writ of quo warranto gives the judiciary a weapon to control the executive from making appointments to public office against law and to protect a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right. These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office who might be 577 allowed to continue either with the connivance of the executive or by the reason of its apathy. Before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 417 and
418 of 1963.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
March 7, 1962, of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
1197 of 1960.
C. K. Daphtary, Attorney-General for India, B. R.
Ethira’ulu Naidu, S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath and P. L.
Vohra, for the appellant (in G.A. No. 417/63).
V. K. Govindara’ulu and R. Gopalakrishnan for the appellant
in C.A.No. 418/63.
S. K. Venkataranga Iyengar, I. B. Dadachanji O.C. Mathur,
Ravinder Narain, for respondents.
August 26, 1963. 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. 226 of the
Constitution. 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. He also prayed for a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ or direction calling upon the University of
Mysore to appoint him Research Reader in the scale of Rs.
500-25-800. His case was that the appointment of Anniah
Gowda to the post of Research Reader was illegal in the face
of the prescribed qualifications and that he was qualified
to be appointed to that post. 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. To his petition, he impleaded the University of
Mysore by its Registrar, and Anniah Gowda as the opposite
party.
578
The University of Mysore and Anniah Gowda disputed the
validity of the claim made by the respondent. lie, urged
that Anniah Gowda was properly appointed Research Reader and
that the contention made by the respondent that the said
appointment was invalid was not justified.
On these pleadings, evidence was led by both the parties in
respect of their respective contentions in the form of
affidavits. The High Court has held that the appointment of
Anniah Gowda was invalid and so it has quashed the
Resolution of the Board of Appointment of the University of
Mysore recommending his appointment and his directed that
his appointment subsequendy made by the Chancellor of the
University should be set aside. The High Court, however,
refrained from granting the respondent a writ of mandamus,
directing his appointment to the said if the appointment
post, because it took the view that even of Anniah Gowda was
set aside, it did not follow that the respondent would
necessarily be entitled to that post. That question,
according to the High Court, may have to be considered by
the University and the Board afresh. 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. 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). In this judgment, we will
describe the University and, Anniah Gowda as Appellants 1
and 2 respectively.
It appears that on 31st July 1959, appellant No. 1 published
an advertisement calling for applications for sit posts of
Professors and six posts of Readers. Amongst them were
included the post of Professor of English and the Reader in
English. The qualifications prescribed for these posts are
material and it is convenient to set them out at this stage
:
“Qualifications
(a) A First or High Second Class Master’s
Degree of an Indian University or an
equivalent qualification of a Foreign
University in the subject concerned;
(b) A Research Degree of a Doctorate Standard
or published work of a high Standard;
579
(c) Ordinarily, ten years (not less than
five years in any case) experience of teaching
post-graduate classes and guiding research in
the case of Professors and at least five years
experience of. teaching degree classes and
independent research in the case of Readers ;
(d) The knowledge of regional language Kan-
nada is considered as a desirable
qualification. Preference will be given to
candidates who have had experience in teaching
and organization of research and have also
done advanced research work.”
In accordance with s. 26(2) of the Mysore University Act,
1956 (No. 23 of 1956), as it then stood, a Board of
Appointments was nominated, consisting of the Vice-Chan-
cellor and two Specialists in English. These Specialists
were Professor P. E. Dastoor of the Delhi University and
Professor L. D. Murphy of Madras. The posts of Professor
and Reader had been advertised in pursuance of a grant made
to appellant No. 1 by the University Grants Commission.
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. The Board had the advantage
of consulting Professor C.D. Narasimhiah, Principal,
Maharaja’s College, Mysore. After taking into account the
opinion expressed by Prof. Narasimhiah, the Board
considered the academic qualifications of the four
applicants and their performance at the interview and came
to the conclusion that none of them was fit enough to be
appointed a Professor under the U.G.C. Scheme in grade 800-
1,250. Accordingly, the Board resolved that the said posts
be kept vacant for the present and be readvertised. 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
considering all aspects of the case, came to the conclusion
that appellant No. 2 was the most suitably qualified person
and unanimously resolved that he be appointed Reader in the
said grade under the U.G.C. Scheme. This report was in due
course approved by the Chancellor on October 3, 1960, and
after he was appointed to the post of Reader, appellant No.
2 assumed charge on October 31, 1960. Meanwhile, even
before he assumed charge of his office, the
580
respondent had filed his present petition on October 15,
1960, and he had claimed an injunction against appellant 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. 2. 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. 2 to the post of Reader in
English, and as we have already pointed out, the High Court
upheld the contentions of the respondent and quashed the
appointment of appellant No. 2.
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.
As Halsbury has observed*
“An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the
place of the obsolete writ of quo warranto which lay against
a person who claimed or usurped an office, ‘franchise, or
liberty, to, inquire by what authority he supported his
claim, in order that the right to the office or franchise
might be determined:”
Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a
judicial remedy by which any person, who holds an inde-
pendent substantive public office or franchise or liberty,
is called upon to show by what right he holds the said
office, franchise or liberty, so that his title to it may be
duly determined, and in case the finding is that the holder
of the office has no title, he would be ousted from that
office by judicial order. In other words, the procedure of
quo warranto gives the judiciary a weapon to control the
Executive from making appointments to public office against
law and to protect a citizen from being deprived of public
office to which he has a right. These proceedings also tend
to protect the public from usurpers of public office, who
might be allowed to continue either with the connivance of
the Executive or by reason of its apathy. It will, thus, be
seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of
quo
*Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd ed., vol. 11, p. 145.
581
warranto, he has to satisfy the Court that the office in
question is a public office and is held by a usurper without
legal authority, and that inevitably would lead to the
enquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper
has been made in accordance with law or not.
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 provision is for
rules were placed before the Court and that in making the
appointment of appellant No. 2 these statutory provisions
had been contravened. The matter 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 qualification 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 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 by him.
Realising the difficulty which he may have to face, Mr. S.
K. Venkataranga lyengar for the respondent wanted to raise
the contention that the appointment of appellant No. 2 was
made in contravention of the statutory rules and ordinances
framed by appellant No. 1. He attempted to argue that he had
referred to the statutory rules and ordinances in the High
Court, but, unfortunately, the same had not been mentioned
or discussed in the judgment. We have carefully considered
the affidavits filed by both the parties in the present
proceedings, and we have no hesitation in holding that at no
stage it appears to have been urged by the respondent before
the High Court that the infirmity in the appointment of
appellant No. 2 proceeded from the fact that the statutory
rules and ordinances made by appellant No.1 had been
contravened. The affidavit filed by the respondent in
support of his petition merely described the appointment of
appellant No. 2 as being illegal, and significantly added
that the said appointment of appellant No. 2 and the failure
of the University to appoint the respondent,
582
were illegal in the face of the prescribed qualifications,
and these qualifications in the context undoubtedly referred
to the qualifications published in the notification by which
the relevant post had been advertised.
It appears that in one of the affidavits filed on behalf of
appellant No. 1 reference was made to the rules framed under
the Mysore University Act (No. 23 of 1956), and it was added
that the appointment to the post of Reader in question had
to be made in accordance with the regulations framed by the
University Grants Commission under s. 26 (1)(e) of the
University Grants Commission Act, 1956. This was disputed
by the respondent, and in that connection, he alleged in a
vague manner that all the appointments made by appellant No.
1 were regulated by the ordinances and rules framed under
the Mysore University Act. 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. Having
made these allegations, no attempt was made in the High
Court to produce these ordinances and to show when they
came into force. It appears that the statutory rules
framed by appellant No. 1 under s. 26 (1) received the
approval of the Chancellor on January 22, 1960, but we do
not know even today when they were published in the Gazette.
Similarly, the ordinances framed were approved by the
Chancellor on the same day, but we do not know when they
came into force. The statutory rules, thus, framed and
approved, come into force on the date of the publication of
the Mysore Gazette, and the ordinances come into force from
such date as the Chancellor may direct (vide s. 42(5) of the
Mysore University Act No. 23 of 1956). Therefore, though
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 ordi-
583
nances 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 lie
confined his attack against the validity of the appointment
of appellant No. 2 solely to the ground that appellant No. 2
did not satisfy the qualification prescribed by the noti-
fications by which applications had been called for by ap-
pellant 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.
Let us briefly indicate the findings recorded by the High
Court before examining the merits of the contentions raised
by the appellants in these appeals. In this connection, it
is necessary to recall the four qualifications prescribed by
the notification. The last one which relates to the know-
ledge of the Kannada language is not in dispute and may be
left out of consideration. The first qualification is that
the applicant must have a First or a high Second Class
Master’s Degree of an Indian University or an equivalent
qualification of a foreign University in the subject con-
cerned. It appears that appellant No. 2 secured 50.2 per
cent marks in his Master’s Degree examination. It was urged
by the respondent before the High Court that when 50 per
cent is the minimum required for securing a second class, it
would be idle to suggest that a candidate, who obtains 50.2
per cent, has secured a high Second Class Master’s Degree,
and so the respondent pleaded that the first condition had
not been satisfied by the appellant No. 2. The High Court
has upheld this plea. In regard to the second
qualification, it appears that appellant No. 2 has obtained
a Degree of Master of Arts of the University of Durham. The
High Court has held that in regard to this qualification, if
the Board took the view that the appellant No. 2 satisfied
that qualification, it would not be Just for the Court to
differ from that opinion. In other words, the High Court
did not make a finding in favour of the respondent in regard
to qualification No. 2. In regard to the third
qualification, the matter appears to have been debated at
length before the High Court. Evidence was led by both the
parties and the respondent seriously disputed the claim made
by both the appellants that appellant No. 2 satisfied the
test of five years experience of teaching
584
Degree classes. The High Court examined this evidence and
ultimately came to the conclusion that though the material
adduced by the appellants on this point was unsatisfactory,
it could not make a finding in favour of the respondent. In
this connection, the High Court has severely criticised the
conduct of appellant No. 1 to which we will refer later.
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.
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
Master’s 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 Master’s Degree of an
Indian University. This aspect of the question pertains
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
585
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 qualifications 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 Master’s 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’s Degree of an Indian University, he did
not satisfy the first qualification. It is plain that
Master’s 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 Master’s Degree of
an 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. 2.
Before we part with these appeals, however, reference must
be made to two other matters. In dealing with the case
presented before it by the respondent, the High Court has
criticised the report made by the Board and has observed
that the circumstances disclosed by the report made it
difficult for the High Court to treat the recommendations
made by the experts with the respect that they generally
deserve. We are unable to see the point of criticism of the
High Court in such academic matters. Boards of Appointments
are nominated by the Universities and when recommendations
made by them and the appointments following on them, are
challenged before courts, normally the courts should be slow
to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts.
There is no allegation about mala fides against
38-2 S. C. India/64
586
the experts who constituted the present Board; and so, we
think, it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to
leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are
more familiar with the problems they face than the courts
generally can be. The criticism made by the High Court
against the report made by the Board seems to suggest that
the High Court thought that the Board was in the position of
an executive authority, issuing an executive fiat, or was
acting like a quasi-judicial tribunal, deciding disputes re-
ferred to it for its decisions. In dealing with complaints
made by citizens in regard to appointments made by academic
bodies, like the Universities, such an approach would not be
reasonable or appropriate. In fact, in issuing the writ,
the High Court has made certain observations which show
‘that the High Court applied tests ‘Which would legitimately
be applied in the case of writ of certiorari. In the
judgment, it has been observed that the error in this case
is undoubtedly a manifest error. That is a consideration
which is more germane and relevant in a procedure for a writ
of certiorari. What the High Court should have considered
is whether the appointment made by the Chancellor had
contravened any statutory or binding rule or ordinance, and
in doing so, the High Court should have shown due regard to
the opinions expressed by the Board & its recommendations on
which the Chancellor has acted. In 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.
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
587
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. Ethirajulu 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 assu-
rance 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
This criticism has been made by the High Court because when
an affidavit was filed before it by Mr. Thimmaraju, the
Gazatted 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
the 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
588
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.
Tlimmaraju, 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 specifically 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,
589
which is kept as a general Register for gazetted servants in
the 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.
In the result, the appeals are allowed, the. order passed by
the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by
the respondent is dismissed with costs throughout, There
will be one set of hearing fees in both the appeals filed by
the two appellants.
Appeals allowed.