- (1.) The petition from which these appeals by special leave arise was filed by the respondent, C. D. Govinda Rao, in the Mysore 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 qualification 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.
(2.) The University of Mysore and Anniah Gowda disputed the validity of the claim made by the respondent. They urged that Anniah Gowda was property appointed Research Reader and that the contention made by the respondent that the said appointment was invalid was not justified.
(3.) On these pleadings, evidence was led by both the parties in respect of their respective contentions the form of affdavits. The High Court has held that the appointment of Anniah Cowda was invalid and so it has quashed the Resolution of the Board of Appointments of the University of Mysore recommending his appointment and has directed that his appointment subsequently 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 post, because it took the view that even if the appointment 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 judgment, but the application was rejected. Thereupon, the University and Anniah Gowda by separate applications moved this Court special leave, and on special leave being granted to them, they have brought the two present appeals before us (Civil Appeals 417 and 418 of 63). In this judgment we will describe the University and Anniah Gowda as Appellants 1 and 2 respectively.;