High Court Karnataka High Court

Prof Dr Rudrappa V Dadibhavi vs Karnataka University on 10 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Prof Dr Rudrappa V Dadibhavi vs Karnataka University on 10 July, 2009
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar B.V.Nagarathna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA 

CIRCUYI' BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 1013* DAY 05* auLY%'?_:§)o:§TVV.: '   

PRESENT

THE H()N'BLE MR.JUS"I'ICE MQQANI1$fiAN9m¢AG'3UmA§é'i_

 { %  
THE HOIWBLE MRS.  '3...y.NAGA?MiiNA
WRIT A9PEAf.%T:ec._3§%Q/ é6:§s,:(s~_REs)

BETWEEN:

PROF." DR.'RL}iDRA'?F:"PA 'v,. 'nAnIBi~iAv1
s/0 LATE VEE%i:mPA% [';AD~£.BHA.VI
AGE: 5? YEARS   

ace: Pf€'{)P'ESS()R"iN EC.QNOMICS
R/0.»/1:923.' Q ' 
NAWKNAGAR  " "

 -  !*I?Q'ii1.LI;_$<'5{)025'   %%%%% .. »  APPSLLANT

» {Bar Vs;-21' s.$=. 3E._LmRY, ADV. (ABSEND)

H 'A1'.*i'D':

1. ' KARNATAKA Unrvrsizsrrv
"1=§AvATE NAGAR
X 4_ DHARWAI)~E$80€)03
 REPRESENTEEL) If-BY rm REGISTRAR

  THE CHAIRMAR

DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRE? COMMITTEE
IN RE PRQRDADIEHAVI DATE OF BIRTH
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY



PAVATENAGAR
DHARWAD ---- 580903  RESPONDENTS.

(3? SR! RH. CHANDANGOUDAR, A[)V., FoR14j”Ri–,«.V”‘–32
SERVED) ‘

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED uNDER..Sfi;£:ri¥i}Ni4 ms.

THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, Am PRAYING ‘I”‘()_’ VsE%§’
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED {N ‘!_’HE “writ-T.___PE1jIT1_(_m’
N{).29’73/2006 DATED 27/2/2(}06′; :

THIS WRIT comma (3:N”‘~EOR F”‘EbxEAL HfiA7§;*’i1«;(3«, -5TH%1s *

DAY not-um snlmraxaeotinaa J., I}EL!’VERED THE
FOLLOWING:- ‘
‘E_l;;p_GMEP$’1’

Perused the recozds.

‘ ‘ mhfiixtin had questioner} the Show

cause name dgie¢”‘+’15.é;2o06 by which he was asked to

sh.e1§§’ ucause aé. his date of bizth shoulrd not be taken

V fig, as against 30.4.1948. The said Show cause

‘.;c1’t$tice”__ an the basis cf the mport gven by the

éyfiiier constituted for verification of date of birth ef

V. ‘Athrzgapjgiéllant as some of £115 coflcaguas of the petitiener had

about the correciness Gf date of birth ef the

” “:;:zppt:1iaJ1t.

3. Since it is open for the appellant ”

objections, if any before the conccmad authorirfif, é

single Judge felt that it is totally: »z:nn¢ce’§,§g ‘ .fc; a

the writ petition.

4. We agree _with Ltakhén’ by tile icaltaed
single Judge: as the iibetty to show cause
to the notice i’3SLlCd ” feels that it is

tmnecessarvy the High Court

qucstionm g thr: SIi(;rw Héfice, we decline to

interfere with the “f Appeal fails and the

same is dismissed. .,