Judgment :

AFTAB ALAM, J.

1. This case sadly illustrates how interim orders passed by the court coupled with judicial delays enure 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. The appellant in this case was wrongly appointed to the post of Reader in the Department of Kannada in Gulbarga University. On the basis of the interim orders passed by the Court and evidently helped by the concerned authorities in the University he has been able to hold on to the post now for over seventeen and a half years.

2. The manner in which the case has progressed to reach the present stage may be stated thus. On March 30, 1992 the Gulbarga University, Gulbarga invited applications for appointment to different posts. One of the advertised posts was of Reader in Kannada. In the remarks column of the notification, it was clearly shown as reserved for `Group B' category. It needs to be stated here that a plain copy of the notification is enclosed with the paper book as part of Annexure PI. In the remarks column of the enclosed copy, the letters "GM" are shown against the post in question, indicating that it was open to the general merit category. In order to show that it was incorrect Mr. L. R. Singh, counsel for respondent No. 2 produced before us a Xerox copy of the notification from which it clearly appears that the post was reserved for a candidate of `Group B' category. Thus, confronted the lame plea on behalf of the appellant was that the mistake in the copy (Annexure P1) was due to a typing error. 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 mistake has to be viewed with a good deal of suspicion.

3. In response to the notification, 11 applications were made for the post in question. Only 3 applicants were from `Group B' category and the rest were from different other categories; the appellant is from the general merit category. According to the appellant, the Board of Appointment did not find any of the `Group B' candidates eligible or suitable and on the basis of the interview held on June 5, 1992 he was selected for appointment. His selection was approved by the Syndicate on February 1, 1993 and a notification for his appointment was issued on February 4, 1993 in pursuance of which he joined the post.

4. On June 27, 1993 respondent No.2 filed a writ petition [W.P. No.22047/1993] in the Karnataka High Court challenging the appellant's appointment on the ground that the post was reserved for `Group B' candidate. He also alleged that in a certain way the appellant (respondent No. 2 in the Writ Petition) was closely related to the Head of the Kannada Department of the University (respondent No.3 in the WP) and his appointment was the result of favouritism. Before the High Court, the writ petition was resisted both by the appellant and the University. On behalf of the University, it was stated that the Writ Petitioner (respondent No.2 in this appeal) did not satisfy the requirements as per the government order to consider him as coming under `Group B' category and, therefore, the Board of Appointment interviewed all the candidates and selected respondent No.2 (appellant herein, who belonged to the General category) on the basis of his qualification, experience and performance in the interview. The appellant and the Head of the Department (who was made a party to the writ petition and was served with notice) on their part denied any relationship between them.

5. A learned single judge of the High Court upheld the contention of the Writ Petitioner (respondent no.2 herein) on both counts. He held that the selection and appointment of the appellant, belonging to the General Merit category, to the post reserved for `Group B' category was illegal. The learned judge further held that the appellant (respondent No.2) w