IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.261 OF 2023 (S-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. THIMMARAJU S.N. S/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS WORKING AS PROFESSOR IN POST GRADUATION CENTRE VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY AT MYSORE MYSURU DISTRICT-570 019 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE BANGALORE UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GNANA BHARATHI COMPLEX BENGALURU-560 056 2 . BOARD OF APPOINTMENTS REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR 2 BANGALORE UNIVERSITY GNANA BHARATHI COMPLEX BENGALURU-560 056 3 . SRI. DILIP KUMAR S.M. S/O MUNESWAR AGED MAJOR No.36, OPP. SHILPA STORES, GOPALA MAIN ROAD GOPASHETTY KOPPA SHIMOGA-577 204 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.S. VENKAT SUBBARAO, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. M. SUBRAMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P.No.15057/2008 (S-RES) DATED 02.01.2023. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 02.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL 3 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order dated 02.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15057/2008 (S-RES). 2. Heard Shri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant had challenged the appointment of respondent No.3 as an Assistant Professor in Computer Science Engineering reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. The writ petition was filed in the year 2008 challenging the select list dated 10.03.2008 and the appointment of respondent No.3 by order dated 26.03.2008, on the ground that the appellant was also one of the applicants for selection to the post and that he was better qualified than respondent No.3 for appointment. It is submitted that the writ petition was initially dismissed by order dated 31.01.2013 on the ground that the appellant did not have the required teaching experience of five years. The 4 said order was challenged in Writ Appeal No.2201/2013 (S) by judgment dated 19.03.2015, a Division Bench of this Court held at paragraphs No.6, 7 and 8, which reads as follows:- "6. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment also reveals that while calculating the period of five years of teaching experience, the learned Judge, indeed, has overlooked the fact that as of the last date for submission of the application, the appellant did have five years of teaching experience. 7. However, the second contention raised by the appellant with regard to the marks he would be entitled to, has not been gone into by the learned Judge. 8. Hence, this Court deems it proper to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge to consider the marks obtained by the appellant and to decide whether the appellant is entitled to extra 3 marks which he claims that he is entitled to, and to adjudicate on the respective merits of the case." The judgment dated 31.01.2013 was therefore set aside and the matter was remanded for consideration to the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that thereafter the matter was taken up by the learned Single Judge afresh and an interim 5 order was passed on 12.10.2017, requiring the writ petitioner to resign from the post of Professor. In case, he wants to pursue the writ petition, thereafter, by order dated 13.10.2017, it was recorded that the petitioner refused to resign from the Post and a conditional order was passed requiring the petitioner to resign from the post of Professor already held by him, if the matter is to be considered on merits. 4. The petitioner filed an application as I.A.No.1/2019 seeking to recall of the order dated 13.10.2017. The matter was considered by the learned Single Judge and without going into the merits of the matter, the learned Single Judge dismissed the application for recall and disposed of the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had already been confirmed as Professor in the Visvesvaraya Technological University. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant places reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Dhar v. J and K Public Service 6 Commission reported in (2000) 8 SCC 182 and C. Jayachandran v. State of Kerala and Others reported in (2020) 5 SCC 230. It is further submitted that the appellant had a better claim than respondent No.3 for appointment which was not considered by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the appellant's contention ought to have been considered on merits. 6. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the writ petition was one filed in the year 2008, challenging the appointment of respondent No.3. At the time of admission, no interim orders were passed. Respondent No.3 had been appointed by Order dated 26.03.2008 and had assumed charge as Assistant Professor. The writ petitioner was also later appointed in the Visvesvaraya Technological University and was thereafter promoted to the post of Professor. The contention of the appellant is that the question of eligibility of the appellant for appointment as Assistant Professor in the Bangalore University ought to have been considered with reference to the selection conducted in the year 2008. It is in support of the said 7 proposition that the judgments of the Apex Court are relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Having considered the contentions advanced, we notice that the writ petition was pending with no interim orders since the year 2008. Respondent No.3 had been selected and had worked in the post since 26.03.2008. We are clear in our minds that in the above factual situation, the appellant who was not successful in getting any interim orders in the first instance, could not have contended that he is entitled for appointment with effect from the year 2008 and for all consequential benefits. The said contention cannot be accepted under any circumstances. 8. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is absolutely no merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. We refrain from imposing costs on the appellant. 8 All pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE cp*