BALAKRLSHNA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition for Judicial Review of an order passed by the Karnataka university, Dharwad vide Annexure 'd' appointing 4th respondent herein to the post of Reader in Post Graduate Gandhian studies in preference to the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that he has been working as a temporary lecturer in the Department of Gandhian studies, Karnataka University, Dharwad since January 1979 and that he has also been in charge of the Department since april 1982. The Karnataka University invited applications to fill up certain posts among one of which was the post of a reader in Gandhian Studies. According to the petitioner, he satisfies all the qualifications prescribed for the appointment of the petitioner as a Reader in the University. Special protection was given to a member of 'backward Special Group' subject to fulfilment of certain qualifications. According to the advertisement, a parson belonging to the 'backward Special Group' should have a consistently good academic record with a first or high second class with a doctoral degree or equivalent published work. It was also required that there should be evidence of such a person being actively engaged in Research or innovation in teaching methods or production of teaching materials. The other qualifications are that the candidate must have five years of experience of teaching or Research, provided that atleast 3 of these years were as lecturer or in an equivalent position. However, the conditions prescribed were subject to relaxation in the case of a candidate possessing outstanding research work. In regard to appointment as a Reader in Gandhian studies it was specifically stated that in addition to the above qualifications for readers, a candidate must have specialised in the Gandhian Studies. The case of the petitioner is that the 4th respondent who was selected does not possess most of the qualifications prescribed. The allegation is that the 4th respondent does not belong to 'backward Special Group*. He is a roman Catholic priest incardinaiated to the Archdiocese of Ernakulam which is a unit of Church of India. According to the petitioner, a Christian after in cardinalation ceases to be a member of his family and the guardian for all his needs and wants would be the Cardinal Archbishop of ernakulam. As a priest, the 4th respondent has the benefit of daily mass stipend. According to the petitioner, a Christian after in cardinalation ceases to be a member of his family and the guardian for all his needs and wants would be the Cardinal Archbishop of ernakulam. As a priest, the 4th respondent has the benefit of daily mass stipend. It appears that 4th respondent submitted an application claiming to belong to the 'backward Special Group' wherein he has stated that his father is an actual cultivator owning only one acre of land andthat he has no other income. The total annual income declared is Rs. 1,200/ -. He has also mentioned that he has no other source of income. In order to substantiate that the 4th respondent belongs to 'backward special Group' he is required to produce a certificate from the competent revenue authority viz. , the Tahsildar of the local area where the land is situated. However, it appears that the 4th respondent chose to produce the certificate issued by the tahsildar, Dharwad whereas the land stated to belong to the 4th respondent and his father is situate in Kerala. The emphasis is laid by the petitioner on the point that the relevant criterion for determination of the question of eligibility for appointment against the quota of 'backward Special group' is not the caste basis but the income basis considering not only the candidate's own income but also the income of the parents and if either of the parents is dead the income of the legal guardian. The petitioner has specifically alleged that the 4th respondent is receiving a sum of Rs. 1,400/- per month as stipend since 1-10-1980 being the value of the Associateship as evidenced from the letter of the University-Grants- commission addressed to the Registrar, karnataka University, Dharwad. It is stated that the 4th respondent does not fall within the category of socially and economically backward person since his income itself is in excess of the minimum prescribed to get eligibility for consideration as against the quota earmarked for 'backward Special Group. ( 3 ) APART from this, it is pointed out that from the fact that 4th respondent has been under the care and patronage of his legal guardian viz. Cardinal Archbishop of Ernakulam, and he cannot by any means be described as a economically backward parson. ( 3 ) APART from this, it is pointed out that from the fact that 4th respondent has been under the care and patronage of his legal guardian viz. Cardinal Archbishop of Ernakulam, and he cannot by any means be described as a economically backward parson. The petitioner has made a serious allegation against the 4th respondent that whereas 4th respondent has claimed in his application that he is a national Fellow, the records show that the University Grants Commission has granted him a Research Associateship. Apart from all these deficiencies and inadequacies, the 4th respondent does not possess either 5 years teaching experience nor has he put in 3 years service as a lecturer. In the first place, he has no doctorate in Gandhian Studies at all. The doctorate that was awarded to him was for a thesis in Karma and Rebirth. At the same time, it is contended that the petitioner is the only candidate who has earned PHD thesis exclusively on Gandhian studies entitjed 'gandhi's Philosophy of Law and that the petitioner has the required teaching experience and further he satisfies all the qualifications required for the appointment of a Reader. ( 4 ) THE petitioner took certain preventive measures also to avert the appointment of the 4th respondent who was not qualified, by giving a representation to the Governor of Karnataka who is incidentally the Chancellor of Karnataka University, dharwad pointing out that the 4th respondent is not qualified at all and that the Selection Committee was wrong in selecting him for that post. However, the chancellor proceeded to appoint the 4th respondent and the Karnataka University issued an order of appointment on 24-6-1983 appointing 4th respondent as a reader. Since the petitioner claims to have not only the necessary qualificationa but also qualifications far superior to those of 4th respondent, he has approached this court for legal redress. ( 5 ) WRIT Petition was filed in the year 1983 and it has come up before me for hearing in 1990. No counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. ( 6 ) THE point for consideration is whether the appointment of the 4th respondent is unjustified for the reason that 4th respondent was not qualified at all for being appointed as a Reader in the Post graduate Department of Gandhian Studies. No counter has been filed on behalf of the respondents. ( 6 ) THE point for consideration is whether the appointment of the 4th respondent is unjustified for the reason that 4th respondent was not qualified at all for being appointed as a Reader in the Post graduate Department of Gandhian Studies. ( 7 ) IN the absence of material to the contrary apart from the absence of rebuttal, i have to accept the averments made by the petitioner in regard to the qualificational deficiencies of the 4th respondent and lack of eligibility even to consider his case for appointment as a Reader in the post advertised. At the same time, there is no basis for me to dispute the claim of the petitioner that he possesses all the qualifications and qualifications higher and far superior to those of 4th respondent for appointment as a Reader in Gandhian studies. The person whose appointment has been challenged in this Writ Petition has , been imp leaded and served with notice. He has not chosen to appear before the Court and has not filed statement of objections. The very conduct of 4th respondent does not inspire confidence there Is hardly any effort on the part of resppndents-1 to 3 to justify the selection and appointment of 4th respondent as a reader. ( 8 ) THIS is one of those classic instances in which efforts are made by persons who do not belong to the 'backward special Group' or backward class but who at the same time attempt to take advantage by producing certificate from a Tahsildar who has no occasion to verify whether the candidate is possessed of income from land which would qualify him or disqualify htm as a person belonging to the 'backward special Group'. In the instant case, certificate produced is from the Tahsildar of Dharwar whereas 4th respondent and his father have lands which are situate in kerala State. I am unable to perceive how this has escaped the notice of the selecting athority. Apart from this deficiency, sayeral other aspects about qualifications of 4th respondent which clearly established that 4th respondent is not at all qualified for consideration for the post of a reader in Gandhian Studies somehow has scaped the attention of the authorities who selected him. I am unable to perceive how this has escaped the notice of the selecting athority. Apart from this deficiency, sayeral other aspects about qualifications of 4th respondent which clearly established that 4th respondent is not at all qualified for consideration for the post of a reader in Gandhian Studies somehow has scaped the attention of the authorities who selected him. At the same time, it is imazing as to how the case of the petitioner went abegging despite the fact that he possesses not only the qualifications for appointment to the post but also academic accomplishments which are far superior to the requirements of the post itself. Though the lacuna was pointed out to the chancellor by the petitioner before the appointment of 4th respondent was approved by the Chancellor, it is difficult to reconcile how the Chancellor also was not able to notice these deficiencies, but, on the other hand, proceeded to accord approval to the appointment of the 4th respondent as a Reader in Gandhian Studies. The appointment and the purpose of Gandhian studies itself is subverted by appointment of 4th respondent who has made false statement in regard to the fact that he belongs to a economically backward class and in particular to the 'backward Special group'. It is most un-Gandhian to say the least. However, at the time of dictating judgment, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Karnataka University brought to my notice that 4th respondent has relinquished his post and has left the university about 4 years ago. In fact, the learned Counsel also submitted that the reason for not filing a counter was because 4th respondent had already quit the post. ( 9 ) NEVERTHELESS, I consider it necessary to make the above observations and also to determine the rights of the petitioner incidental to the appointment to the post of a Reader in Gandhian Studies. Having looked into the averments as well as the material on record. I am of the opinion that the appointment of the 4th respondent as Reader in Gandhian Studies in Karnataka University was most unwarranted and unjustified. The 4th. respondent was ineligible for consideration for appointment to a post of Reader in gandhian Studies and further was not at all a person to be appointed to the post by virtue of not only lack of qualification but also by his conduct. The 4th. respondent was ineligible for consideration for appointment to a post of Reader in gandhian Studies and further was not at all a person to be appointed to the post by virtue of not only lack of qualification but also by his conduct. ( 10 ) IF 4th respondent had not been appointed, the petitioner would have moved to No. 1 position whereas he was brought down to No. 2 in the list of the selected candidates and since I have taken the view that the appointment of 4th respondent was unjustified, necessarily it follows that the petitioner should occupy the place originally given to the 4th respondent which post has now become vacant on account oi his exit about 4 years ago on his relinquishing the post. ( 11 ) IT was submitted by the learnedcounsel appearing for the petitioner that if the petitioner had been appointed at the relevant point of time to post of a Reader in Gandhian Studies in the place of 4th respondent, subsequent promotions or increments and others service benefits which would have been available to the petitioner would not be available now unless this Court passes an order that the petitioners was entitled to be appointed with effect from the date on which 4th respondent was appointed that is 24-6-1983. ( 12 ) ON the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counselfor the Karnataka University that this post is reserved for the 'backward Special group' candidate only and from time to time rules are being amended and instructions given to the University in regard to the appointments to be made in such situations. I have looked into the advertisement inviting applications to the posts of Reader in Gandhian Studies. The relevant portion of the advertisement reads thus :"if candidates belonging to Scheduled caste, Scheduled Tribes, Backward tribe, Backward Communities, Backward castes and other reserved categories are not available, the said vacancies will be filled up in accordance with the latest government instructions in this behalf. " ( 13 ) IT is significant that it is now here mentioned that the posts should be kept vacant if no candidate is available belonging to the aforesaid categories. " ( 13 ) IT is significant that it is now here mentioned that the posts should be kept vacant if no candidate is available belonging to the aforesaid categories. No Government instructions are brought to my notice which impede the appointment of the petitioner who is duly qualified to the post of a Reader in preference to the 4th respondent not duly qualified w. e. f. 24-6-1983. ( 14 ) IN these circumstances, I am notinclined to keep the petitioner in a state of uncertainty and insecurity in regard to his position as Reader and also in regard to the service benefits which would be available to him if his appointment had been made on 24-6-1983. I do not consider it reasonable or fair to deny the benefits which go with the post. Since I have taken the view that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a Reader in Gandhian studies, I do not wish to dilute the position by giving room for keeping the petitioner as a Reader in Gandhian Studies on in-charge basis. For the reasons stated above, pass the following order Writ Petition is allowed. The order under Annexure 'd' dated 24-6-1983 is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on a regular basis as a Reader tin Gandhian studies of Karnataka University w. e. f. 24-6-1983 subject to Government instructions holding the field as on 24-6-1983. I wish to make it clear, the Government instructions if any, would not constitute any impediment to the appointment of the petitioner as a Reader in Gandhian studies. --- *** --- .