{"id":23017,"date":"2010-01-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010"},"modified":"2014-12-06T20:13:24","modified_gmt":"2014-12-06T14:43:24","slug":"dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"Dr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 27 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Dr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 27 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath And Kumar<\/div>\n
 \n\n \n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CERCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD\n\nDATED THIS THE 27\"' DAY or JANUARY 2010;  [\n\nBEFORE\n\nTHE HOl\\l'BLE MR. JUSTICE KL'.     A\n\nAND\nTHE HONELE MR. JUSTICl\u00a31v:A'BAVlND.  \n\nw.A. No. 83;\/20os(sel;REls~)ep A\nBetween:  I   \n\nDr. Anant L. Zandekar,    A\n\nS\/0 Lalappa D.Zandel\u00a7ar,f's't'  ,     \nAged about 40 years,  ,   \nResident of F~l3p,_Vl\\lea;r\"(}:3_eVst HQ'use, *  .\nPavate nagar, :Karnatal\u00a7a Urrh\/'ersity'CampV1ls,\nDharwad-3, District Dhaiwad; -. ' '\n\n* 2 \" p '  \"     - Appellant\n(by Sri S.P. Kulkarnig Advocate\"fQr't'Ramachandra A. Mali, Advocate)\n\nands. \n\n1.  The\" State\u00e9lofiiiarnataka represented by its\nll\ufb02ec\u00e9fetary t'o.V'GOfV~e*fnrnent, Department of\nEa\"u_<:'atior_1(Cijllegiate), M.S. Building,\n\n_ Bangalore-56'0 001.\n\nA '4'  files -l\ufb01arlnataka University,\n_ '' Pavate Nagar, Dharwad--580 003,\n'  Dlstrlct Dharwad, represented by its Registrar\n\n\n\n3. Dr. Lokesha s\/o Kalyanaiah,\nMajor, Reader in ?.G. Department of\nAncient Indian History & Epigraphy,\nKarnataka University, Pavate Nagar,\nDharwad-580 003, District Dharwad.\n\n0 4. The Board of Appointment for the\n\nPost of Reader, Ancient Indian Historyf  .\nKarnataka University, Pavate Nagar,  \nDharwad-580 003, Dist. Dharwad,\n\nRepresented by its Chairman. 0 ' . ._    -V\n"'--. _ 0 e -- Respondents<\/pre>\n
(by SriC.S. Pati1,A.G.A for RI,’
\nBy Sri I.G. Gachchinamath, Advocate ,~
\nRespondent No. 3 and 4 — served) ii     0<\/p>\n
This Wm App_eal_:l,:is-.filei=.d” 4;\u00a2r High Court of
\nKarnataka Act, 1961 lprayiing to” se’t:. aside the order dated 31.03.2008
\npassed in W.P. No.5’44\u00a3_38\/20008.,   0  <\/span><\/p>\n
This appeai iconiiinig-~.i,o1i.i:lcr:preliminary hearing on this day
\nAravind Kumar} J,0’deliVe_rec\u00a5.’pt–he”fopllo’wing judgment.<\/p>\n
Ed  ment<\/p>\n
1;, iiTliieijud\u00e9iiient”passed in W.P. No. 4458\/2008 dated 31.03.2008<\/p>\n
 . ,9 passed’  Judge is assailed in this intra court appeal<\/p>\n
 filed Vu\/S 4iofth’e,V.Karnataka High Court Act.<\/p>\n
.1  0′ Thetfactslin the nutshell are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Second respondent herein published a noti\ufb01cation on<\/p>\n
24.12.2005 calling for applications to the post of Reader in Ancient<\/p>\n
History in Karnataka University amongst calling for  <\/p>\n
other posts. The last date for submission of ap_plieat’ion yvas<\/p>\n
28.01.2006. On 27.01.2006 the appellant stibmiittied. aipplicat.ioon’to_llthell’<\/p>\n
post of Reader in Ancient History and Epigraphy.’  <\/p>\n
came to be issued by the University datedil5.,_Vl2.2O0–6_to the earlier
\nnoti\ufb01cation and readvertised the’Tpostsf-,’a.slili\ufb02i\u00e9i\u00e9klog posts. it is
\ncontended by the petitione.r thatllhe’   call letter from<\/p>\n
University for interviewdanii sin_\u00a2_\u00a2’ he ‘d_id._’no_t receive the same he<\/p>\n
approached this’ Comttl  seeking for a Writ of
\nMandamus to consider-thle-appliication of the appellant to the post of
\nRf3’3d\u20ac1f i\ufb01ii Indliart———}~~iistory under Scheduled Case Rural<\/p>\n
category’;  l’:et.ition came to be disposed of by this Court by<\/p>\n
lmiiorder dated30V_.ill2l00V7 whereunder it was held that the concerned<\/p>\n
2 ” ‘av;iti1ori’ties are ’empowered to conclude the proceedings strictly as per<\/p>\n
 t.ten_ns~ and conditions stipulated in the noti\ufb01cation dated<\/p>\n
 (Annexure-A) and in accordance with the relevant<\/p>\n
provisions of the statute. By virtue of interim order granted on<\/p>\n
10.05.2007 petitioner participated in the interview heldiwon<\/p>\n
11.05.2007. The Board for Appointment constituted  _<\/p>\n
Karnataka University Act 2000 consideredmthe appiic-ationldof-ii ‘= <\/p>\n
applicant and also others including third respondent’ic\u00bbto”~the <\/p>\n
Reader in Post Graduate Department iiov’f’~.A’ncie’r1t VIrid_iVanVH:isst’er\u00a7,r ‘and * it<\/p>\n
Epigraphy, Karnataka University, “and il5y=-order dated
\n26.12.2007 (Annexure-R) selectediithe 3’? the said post.<\/p>\n
3. This selection came to belassai.led.isinf’WE. no. 4458\/08 by the<\/p>\n
appellant herein \\iiIhere;1ndicirvitheiappointinient of third respondent to
\nthe post in question it was contended that third
\nrespondentydid not possess requisite noti\ufb01cation and the Board of<\/p>\n
Appointment  considered the matter placed before it and in<\/p>\n
‘J2pp_deferericei’iito’  produced by the appellant herein the<\/p>\n
i’7Corr:rnitteeliiproceedied to select third respondent and accordingly<\/p>\n
2 tioriquashing the said appointment and also a further prayer<\/p>\n
  to select the appellant in place of the third respondent.<\/p>\n
4. The learned Single Judge by order dated 31.03.2008 in W.P.
\nNo. 4458\/2008 after perusal of the rnaterials placed before it carne to<\/p>\n
the conclusion that third respondent (selected candidate) <\/p>\n
more marks in the qualifying examination and had alsojlie vposrsessed <\/p>\n
more experience in teaching and did not accept the-_. pleajliput forward,<\/p>\n
by the Writ Petitionerl appellant and accordingly  <\/p>\n
Petition. It is this order which is now assailed in the presentvpappeal.\n<\/p>\n
5. We have heard Sri Kulieami, jpcoliinsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
appellant on behalf of Sri Ramachandral ll\/Ia;l’i.,Vv.’r’i~VV<i;fvtI_t'37'cate and learned<\/p>\n
Government; Advlolcaiae 'respvondent no. _1 and Sri Gurudev
\nGachchinamath,learned V cou:is"e:l,rVll4appearing for respondent no. 2.
\nThough "r_\u00a7\u00abe'spondent"'  3: and 4 are served have remained<\/p>\n
unrepresented. up .' r,,,u __<\/p>\n
  V6.  Stibmislsiotiis  learned counsel appearing for the appellant<\/p>\n
_  are.sLumna1'i.sed as follows:  .\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(i)<\/p>\n
(ii)<\/p>\n
(iii)<\/p>\n
6<\/span><\/p>\n
What has been prescribed under the noti\ufb01cation Annexure-A is
\nPost Graduation in MA. in Ancient indian History and<\/p>\n
Epigraphy and third respondent was possessing <\/p>\n
Graduation Degree in Ancient lndian History  _<\/p>\n
only and thus did not ful\ufb01l the initial criteyria.<\/p>\n
That the marks to be awarded as per’1\u00absub_’_lSectionfol) <\/p>\n
Section (7) of Section 53 of\u00bbUnix\/ersity._Act_has’:..;riot” been ” it<\/p>\n
awarded by the Selection’ .Comnri’ttee_fanlde.thus tlie-selection of
\nthird respondent is liable to be lseltfaside.__.__”-  <\/p>\n
The material pl~acegd:with__ regard ‘to:”th.evVp_ublication of articles
\nand research -\u00bb..bye.vl4appe*llant has not been taken into<\/p>\n
consideration.  Appointment and hence the order<\/p>\n
 ‘~  of  of 3’6 resp-endent is liable to be set aside.<\/p>\n
In support submissions learned counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
l”‘appelVl’antgwouldl:’ rely upon the following decisions of the Hon’ble
\n“h::Suprernel “Court in the case of District Collector & Chairman,<\/p>\n
  .V_’lVilii:o\ufb01a_garam Social Welfare Residential School Society,<\/p>\n
 n<\/p>\n
Vizitmagaram and another Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi reported in<\/p>\n
(1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 655 by drawing our attention to<\/p>\n
paragraph no. 6 of the judgment. He also relies upon the  <\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd.\n<\/p>\n
Aligarh Muslim University & Ors. Reported! in W  <\/p>\n
8. Per contra, Sri Gurudev Gachchinarnath; lea\u00bbn’led,:4_couinsei <\/p>\n
appearing for second respondent would  that perusal of
\nthe two applications would cleiaitliiri’  that ‘appellant herein had<\/p>\n
secured Second Class in it\/[_._A. on’ contraryiitheiselected candidate<\/p>\n
had secured   M.AtWand hence on comparative
\nmerits of the “‘.:wo_  selected candidate, i.e., 3″‘
\nrespondent stands on at bettier footing and hence merit alone being the<\/p>\n
criteria, the contention of the learned petitioner’s counsel is sought to<\/p>\n
 be repel~leid.,’He’wo_ul’d’also submit that contention raised now in the<\/p>\n
lapppeal withii1’egiardi to the articles and research work said to have been<\/p>\n
‘1.p’uhilshed’ihaving not been taken into consideration, is contrary to the<\/p>\n
it  draws our attention to the very application \ufb01led by the<\/p>\n
1. Whether this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
\n226 can substitute the view taken to that of by the Selection<\/p>\n
Board and if so what orders are to be passed?\n<\/p>\n
2. Even if the grievances of the appellant is scrutirii.aedjV’b:j\/   <\/p>\n
Court whether the appellant can be  torbe tnore -rneriVtorior1sl”\u00ab<\/p>\n
comparatively to third respondentwho ihahslheen selected’?\n<\/p>\n
10. Point No. 1.: in supportkdf  cca_I1te’ritipon’*with regard to the<\/p>\n
assessment of relevant merits, le’arhed’pcounsel Sri.K’tillkarni had drawn<\/p>\n
our attention the jAudgntevn’tsvV_of thewHon’ble Supreme Court in
\nthe case of Districts Cotlleeitporl’&l:Clrairman, Vizianagaram Social
\nWelfare Residential Selioal Staciety, Vizianagaram and another Vs.<\/p>\n
 ‘Devi reported in (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases<\/p>\n
     Vs. Aligarh Muslim University & Ors.\n<\/p>\n
_Ti”..}\u00a7eported  31R SC W 3755. We \ufb01nd that in so far as the first<\/p>\n
‘._’_’case\u00abinarr1el’y. Tripura Sundari Devi’s case is concerned the Selection<\/p>\n
‘ -lig’C0i’rimittee while considering the relevent merits found that the<\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
respondent having a Third Class P.G. Decree was selected___ and<\/p>\n
appointed inadvertently without scrutinizing the copies of certli\ufb01caitiespp<\/p>\n
and during the course of scrutiny of original certificates-tit.”wias.::foi.i:id_”‘_’ it<\/p>\n
by the Selection Authority that the responderit”therein–.was  of  <\/p>\n
quali\ufb01cation and as such candidate therein iwasrlot  “to ‘;-ioinll’<\/p>\n
service and this action which was challlengedl”the iliaggrieved
\nselected candidate though  1Higih”(f\u00a2,urt, was
\nnot accepted by the Hon’.ble Apex  order of the
\nauthorities came     present case is
\nconcerned it  herein that the selected
\ncandidate didl*n’ot–  with regard to the Post
\nGraduate. The appellant is with regard to non
\npo:s’sessing’:g_:tiif  qualiiicati-on’with regard to Epigraphy. What has<\/p>\n
been’preiscribedtii\u00e9”the–..noti\ufb01cation is with regard to the PG. in<\/p>\n
 jili\ufb01uicient lridian  and Epigraphy.\n<\/p>\n
 is seenirom the application \ufb01led by the selected candidate,<\/p>\n
only possessed Diploma in Epigraphy but was also<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
Lecturer in the same College with 8 years experience in the subject of<\/p>\n
Epigraphy also. Apart from that the selected candidate had possessed<\/p>\n
First Class in MA. by securing 63.5% marks as against  _<\/p>\n
herein who had secured Second Class in lVI..A.,. _Henc_–e’th’e   ii ”<\/p>\n
Tripura Sundari Devi supra relied upon bylthe  <\/p>\n
not be applicable to the facts of the pre’s_er1t_pcaseI .\n<\/p>\n
12. In so far as the second jzgdgment’, l1’\u00a3Jphd.iliSol:rall2 Khan ‘s
\ncase is concerned, the Selection.’:Cornrnitt.e:e’~ .duri:\u00a7g the stage of<\/p>\n
selection and during; *’theg1._rnid way  sevlect:i’on..__Changed the essential<\/p>\n
quali\ufb01cation ajcriteilfiawifrorrilliiswliat”waslaid” down in the advertisement
\nand it is on this particular ground_l:_Ho.n’ble Apex Court held that what
\nhas been pj-jbliished in the Vadvvertisernent cannot be altered not only to<\/p>\n
the__dietemjin:arit_ the non selected candidates but also to the<\/p>\n
 detern1’inant to ‘ca;n.dijdates who are similarly placed and the selection<\/p>\n
_la._\\2_\\(asVhnot alceeptedl. In the instant case we do not find that such a<\/p>\n
‘\ufb01situationl Chas arisen. Both candidates namely the candidate selected,<\/p>\n
‘ third respondent and the appellant who was also an applicant<\/p>\n
W<\/p>\n
12<\/span>
\nadmittedly possessed M.A. in Ancient History. On perusal of these
\ntwo quali\ufb01cations, Selection Board found that the third respondent is<\/p>\n
possessing higher marks namely 63.4% than that of the appellant’in<\/p>\n
MA. and accordingly accepted the claim of the third  .<\/p>\n
selected him. Hence, we are of the opinion that Mohd..lSahra’o lKhan’s;_ K ”<\/p>\n
case referred to supra is not applicable to theniipreis\ufb02eritilcase Vii<\/p>\n
13. In the judgment of the Horfble   the; case of
\nDalpat Abasaheb Solunke ahd’-ralthei-.s   Mahajan and<\/p>\n
others reported in (1390)  :’\u00bbCases 305, has<\/p>\n
circurnscribedvlthescopes of 3\u00a71idicial:l.’reVieiyhyith regard to appointment
\nand selection.  is held’bylltheiriordships as follows:
\n” 12. It will ;’l’r’i’14!.\u00a7’ appear that apart from the fact that the High Court<\/p>\n
  of the two appointees in one, though their<\/p>\n
 appoihtments ‘are_~v_noti’.;assailable on the same grounds, the court has<\/p>\n
lfalsogfoundl’ it ‘rurcelssaty to sit in appeal over the decision of the<\/p>\n
 ‘Cforninittee and to embark upon deciding the relative<\/p>\n
 llfmerits of the candidates. It is needless to emphasise that it is not the<\/p>\n
52%”\n<\/p>\n
function of the court to hear appeals over the decisions of the
\nSelection Committees and to scrutinize the relative merits of the<\/p>\n
candidates. Whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or–not<\/p>\n
has to be decided by the duly constituted Selection  <\/p>\n
has the expertise on the subject. This Court has no  <\/p>\n
T he decision of the Selection Committee can be.interfei–ed’with’-onlyC f<\/p>\n
on limited grounds, such as illegality’o::patent- material iliryregularitjk
\nin the constitution of the Committee or_u’its_procedure:vitiating the
\nselection, or proved mala fidesiiaffectingiftheselection etc. It is not<\/p>\n
disputed that in the present case   constituted the<\/p>\n
Committee mane  the relevant statutes. The
\nCommittee consisted of experts  it selected the candidates after
\ngoing, all, the ‘re:’e-v-ant material before it. In sitting in<\/p>\n
appealpvg);-“‘thezseleetion so made and in setting it aside on the<\/p>\n
 {ground of.4__tlze_.so_c.–alled comparative merits of the candidates as<\/p>\n
S S’  by thcifourt, the High Court went wrong and exceeded its<\/p>\n
V” \u00ab _ jurisdiction”\n<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
It is not the function of this Court in exercise of its power under<\/p>\n
Article 226 of Constitution to hear the grievances of the aggrieved<\/p>\n
party as though appreciating the same in an appeal from <\/p>\n
of the Selection Committee to scrutinize the ineritsnf ‘candidate’i  C <\/p>\n
which exercise has been done by the Universii.-typ ivnithie._in~stant\u00bb.i_caae.f<\/p>\n
Hence question no. 1 formulated hereinaboive has toii”n\u00a7:v.answ%ered.Viit\u00bb<\/p>\n
against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
14. Point No. 2: Though i”v.iie-.haive-.ipj.anisweredgquestion no. 1<\/p>\n
formulated hereinabove:holdinigiithatiit  not ‘~bc=;iiiiv*viiithin the scope of<\/p>\n
judicial review to’ the~._rnerits and demerits of the rival
\ncandidates, onithe content’iwonsii’1=aise”d by the appellant’s counsel to
\ncontend that”th.ird respondent. did not possess requisite quali\ufb01cation<\/p>\n
weare jperforcedp to reconsider the said claim and on such scrutiny we<\/p>\n
  \ufb01nd thati.sa.ridicon.t_ention also requires to be rejected for the following<\/p>\n
  reasons.\n<\/p>\n
   is seen from the applications produced by the appellant herein<\/p>\n
  third respondent that appellant herein has secured Second Class in<\/p>\n
go<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
PG. Degree, i.e., M.A. in Ancient Indian History, Eph (Epigraphy) in<\/p>\n
the year 1995 from Karnataka University, Dharwad. On comparison<\/p>\n
it is observed from the application of the third respondent~\u00ab.wih*iehc-is <\/p>\n
Annexure-L at column no. 8 he has secured First_Clas*s.VD~egree in ._ <\/p>\n
MA. in Ancient History and Archeology frorinflthepii<\/p>\n
Mysore from the Departrnent of Histoiygpandii ArcheoloV:gyV..;i’n_iyear <\/p>\n
June 1996. It is also noticed from theyp.eifu,s_a’l~~..of the  column that
\nthe third respondent has secured’  from the same
\nUniversity, i.e., Mysoie by securing<\/p>\n
First Class  that third respondent had<\/p>\n
published ceirtainpioriginal-At.:researcl2 pwork and said to have got it
\npublished in the iNational’v._and._reputed journals as per enclosure-II to
\ntliesaid apidlicpationpi  “””\n<\/p>\n
l6.ii’   cor\u00a7ti*apthieelap13ellant in column no. 12 of his application had<\/p>\n
ii’v.iii””‘contended,__that~  published two articles and two books and at<\/p>\n
_ .. ;p\ufb01ge:”‘1}Q.Vg4 in the column of enclosure the same does not \ufb01nd a place.<\/p>\n
 Board of Appointment on perusal of the enclosure to the<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
application and by considering relevant merits of both the candidates,<\/p>\n
has come to the conciusion that third respondent is more meri.to-rious<\/p>\n
than that of the appellant. This \ufb01nding of fact cannot be.<\/p>\n
even on reappreciation of the contentions raised in the.apll_peal;c.i.:” _ 9<\/p>\n
17. in so far as the contention with regardpiito notadherii;ig..t’o’._VV<\/p>\n
provisions of sub section (6) and (7)  53″ o.f.t_hc. ctjnivoiicity Act, <\/p>\n
we are unable to accept the’*~cont;entio1*iillg\ufb02oif”the leairneid counsei
\nappearing for the appeiiant. Thougliiearned coiiriseE.iappearing for the<\/p>\n
appellant in orderto\u00e9irbuttressi,his  has produced a<\/p>\n
comparative i.statemen’t_–i self assessment basis) to contend
\nthat marks assignedtby ‘the’tSe\u00a5:_e’ctiVoiiiCommittee is not in consonance
\nwith the prpvisti.ons ofs1\u00a7biiSection (o) and (7) of Section 53 of the Act,<\/p>\n
.}i?1l\u00a7lt\u00a7~.toV beirejecvted __for the simple reason that under the category of<\/p>\n
 teaching’.expeirieneelfthe appellant has got himself assigned 10 marks<\/p>\n
 iconiparison; to the third respondent’s teaching experience by<\/p>\n
5._i_:’as_signingi””‘8 marks. To substantiate this claim learned counsel<\/p>\n
. ‘iiciilapiplearing for the appeilant has taken us to the service certi\ufb01cate said<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
to have been issued by S.J.M.V. Sangha’s Arts & Commerce College,<\/p>\n
Hubli which is at Annexure K and K1. On perusal of thesetwo<\/p>\n
certi\ufb01cates we find that appellant claims to have ser_\\-jeti _<\/p>\n
institution from 1999 to 2006 (by first certificate) nttti~nein’iiioti2 to ~ <\/p>\n
2007 (by second certi\ufb01cate). When he clia-irns_j_’to:_’ha’vei iinyefli\u00e9i<\/p>\n
same institution we are unable to see’e.itiier rhyme or _reason ‘as.to’why * ‘<\/p>\n
two certi\ufb01cates for the same period st:-\u00a3’ti1fi.\u00e9’~tO”*~be issued–..and without
\ngoing to the tnetits of the eiaint 1fr1ade..5i.in’de_ri ith’e..:s’ai_d certi\ufb01cate we
\nfind that third respondent. had  ‘i.ni”tifactv_’wf0rking in the Very<\/p>\n
institution for the _’*cornparative statement<\/p>\n
prepared by appellant  ac:c’epted. In so far as the contention
\nwith regard to the rpnhtieationnttithe journals the appeliant has failed
\nto’.,%,n:ye.:ntaterial”eitirer before the Board of Appointment, or<\/p>\n
before the  before this Court and hence this ground also<\/p>\n
*.__i”‘d’ces not ‘iTi.\u20ac1’itv’CQtl:S1deFafi0n and accordingly it is rejected. Hence<\/p>\n
C it 2 forrriulated hereinabove is answered against the appellant<\/p>\n
 eh_oidiing”that appellant does not possess more merit than the third<\/p>\n
  it . . _ K irespiondent. Accordingly the following order is passed.<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
Order<\/p>\n
The appeai is hereby dismissed. N0 order as to C0s_t;*_\u00a7I”‘ ‘    <\/p>\n
 ~%d\/~
\nEEEDGE<\/p>\n
bvv<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Dr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 27 January, 2010 Author: K.L.Manjunath And Kumar IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CERCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27″‘ DAY or JANUARY 2010; [ BEFORE THE HOl\\l’BLE MR. JUSTICE KL’. A AND THE HONELE MR. JUSTICl\u00a31v:A’BAVlND. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-23017","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-06T14:43:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 27 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-06T14:43:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2598,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010\",\"name\":\"Dr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-06T14:43:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 27 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Dr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-06T14:43:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 27 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-06T14:43:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010"},"wordCount":2598,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010","name":"Dr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 27 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-06T14:43:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dr-anant-l-zandekar-vs-the-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-27-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dr Anant L Zandekar vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 27 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23017","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23017"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23017\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23017"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23017"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23017"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}