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

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

Appellant was wrongly appointed to a post reserved for 'Group B' category and his selection was tainted. The equitable considerations do not favor him; there is no concept of adverse possession in service law. Ad-hoc arrangement should not continue, and post must be filled afresh.

Parties
Appellant: Dr. M.S. Patil; Respondent: Gulbarga University; Respondent: Respondent No. 2
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Appointment, Reservation Policy, Adverse Possession in Service Law, Equitable Considerations
Service Law Appointment Reservation Policy Adverse Possession in Service Law Equitable Considerations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. M.S. Patil

Appellant

Gulbarga University

Respondent

Respondent No. 2

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the appointment of the appellant to the Reader post valid considering reservation for 'Group B'?
  2. 2 Did participation of a related Head of Department taint the selection process?
  3. 3 Does long occupation of post by appellant create any equitable right or adverse possession?

Ratio Decidendi

Appellant was wrongly appointed to a post reserved for 'Group B' category and his selection was tainted. The equitable considerations do not favor him; there is no concept of adverse possession in service law. Ad-hoc arrangement should not continue, and post must be filled afresh.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • University shall issue a fresh notification to fill up the post of Reader in Kannada.
  • Selection and appointment to be completed within six months from the date of judgment.