{"id":24307,"date":"2009-09-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-12-28T05:57:58","modified_gmt":"2017-12-28T00:27:58","slug":"sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sri S S Menasagi S\/O Sri. … vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 16 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri S S Menasagi S\/O Sri. … vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 16 September, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: Anand Byrareddy<\/div>\n
1\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\n\nDATED THIS THE 16\"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009\n\nBEFORE:\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. EUSTICE ANAND 1BTYj}\u00a7g,gig;5\u00a2DY E  Q  \n\nWRIT PETTTTON No. i93: 7 i2,c2_Q;zjgis+Pr<io;. i _ii 'E1 \n\nBETWEEN:\n\nSri.S.S.Menasagi,\n\nSon of Sri.Shankarappa', \nAged about 44 years, " ii A .L  _  AA \nPresentiy working as Assistant Engine~:eri '  \nKarnataka i-Iou;'5.i'r;;\u20ac Board] '    V \n\ncmagurga      \nChitrad'ur_g'aT,_     PETITIONER\n\n(By S'hri.B  . Baje nt:'i,iiAdiivocate)\n\n    oifjKi"arnataka,\n\nRepresented by its Secretary,\n-- Department of Housing,\n" _Vi~kasa Soudha,\n\n "  BaI1gaE.ore--56O O}.\n\n  Karnataka Housing Board,\n\nCauvery Bhavan,\n\nK.G.Road,\n\nBanga1ore~560 O09,\n\nRepresented by its Commissioner.\n\n3\n\n\n\nl\\)\n\n3. The Commissioner,\nKarnataka Housing Board,\n\nCauvery Bhavan,  : ~---- \nK.G.Road,   y_       1 --\nBanga1ore--~560 009.   ..R}E1SPONiij\n\n(Additional. Government Pleader' for Respioiidenti'iii: '    \nBy Shri.Vishnu D.Bhat, Advocate_for_ Respo.adent.2):\u00a7\n\nThis Writ Petition hisfi1edi'under'Artieles 226 and 227 of\nthe Constitution of irzdiajprayingi to 'quash the impugned\nendorsement. "dated  issued by the\nrespondent,.f%"\u00ab.\\\/idgeiAnnex1ire--Pandto direct the respondents to<\/pre>\n
consider the c_.Iai_rni’ot’ thelpeti’ti.onei**v,for promotion to the post of
\nAssistvantExeetutirgeppEngineer retrospectively from the date this
\njuniors were.fhprorhote_d’and grant him all the consequential
\nbenefits V i  it   i ‘<\/p>\n
ThisWristji5’etitioin\u00abeorning on for preliminary hearing this
\nday,’ the Court\u00bb made the foliowingz —\n<\/p>\n
ii  …..\n<\/p>\n
V  V   _ Heardcounsei for the petitioner and the respondent.<\/p>\n
 p  iiiihe facts as stated by the petitioner are that the<\/p>\n
 iipietitioner has passed SSLC examination and has obtained a<\/p>\n
iifNatior1a1 Trade Certificate in the Draftsman (Civil) Trade<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
awarded by the National Council for Vocationa1:t”‘F–rain_i_ng _._and<\/p>\n
Vocational Trade, Ministry of Labour, Gox-ernjinentfiof Ingdia..gaK_<\/p>\n
which according to the petitionergis f_trea:ted=_as.. equivialierttveto<\/p>\n
Diploma in Civil Engineeri1ig;t.__The certiificate: ‘produced at”<\/p>\n
Annexure — A, to the writ petiti_or1E’ <\/p>\n
The petitioner sub’rr1i’ts_V that the-‘Gove’i’nin1ent of Karnataka<\/p>\n
has treated thisijeijelkliatiolnali_’I’rad_e._Ce’riifieate in the Trade of<\/p>\n
Draftsrnainii(Civil)  eiqi:uiivale’nt.iito’ the Diploma awarded by the
\nPolytechnicsg in,the:fA’cor1=es’po’nding Trades for the purpose of<\/p>\n
app;oi’nt_n1ent tostlhordinate services and posts under the State<\/p>\n
  copy of the Government Order in this regard,<\/p>\n
    is produced as Annexure M B.\n<\/p>\n
it  The petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and<\/p>\n
it fh–e was entrusted with technical work attached to the post of<\/p>\n
-‘Draftsman i_n \u00a3983. His appointment was regularized in the post<\/p>\n
of Second Division Assistant. Subsequently, on 31.03.2000, the<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
third respondent by an order had regularized his appgoingtment<\/p>\n
with effect from 01.07.1993 in the post of <\/p>\n
Engineer. The petitioner has been subsequentiyassigned?\u00bb the <\/p>\n
pay–sca1e of Rs.4575–8400, whichiis the*.pa3;,sfcaiefpiaggssea  <\/p>\n
then for the post of Di’aftsma1d\/I unioriingineerziviiiii  <\/p>\n
The petitioners he-._was appointed in an
\nindependent charge of th~eV_po’_st Engineer (Re-
\ndesignated as Mariager-) uinder ‘RL::ie=i’32…o:f the Karnataka Civil
\nServiiees ‘RL11eis~.’:’:’-~.I\u00a7’e.0i”wgas~– ‘posted as Manager (Assistant
\nExecutive 4-Enginee_z’)ii.n\u00a5eh-arge of new scheme at Hubli.<\/p>\n
if  ‘V”Ifhe.i'”p;eti.tioner was promoted aiongwith others on<\/p>\n
  Assistant Engineer. The pay–sca_le of the<\/p>\n
 Apetitiont\u00e9r was fixed under the post of Assistant Engineer by a<\/p>\n
 ‘me.rnorandum dated 15.10.2004 with effect from 15.06.2004.<\/p>\n
4. The first respondent had published a draft amendment<\/p>\n
to the Cadre and Recruitmgt Rules of the Karnataka Housing<\/p>\n
Board and from the provisions in the draft~…c\u00bbadrc’.j’ <\/p>\n
Recruitment Rules in respect of the ca.d.re_:”ewof’Vi.\/Assistants’ <\/p>\n
Executive Engineers, l()% of the postsiinthe’-eadre—ofa\ufb01issistaiat<\/p>\n
Executive Engineers werev’iVproposed._ ‘top beviiifiiiedppp <\/p>\n
deputation of the officers in L  Executive
\nEngineers from they lb-ihpartment, 60% by
\npromotion frorntiie  working in the
\nKarnataka  qualification, and 30% by
\npromotioni” sisaidii with Diploma in Civil
\n also proposed to prescribe a<\/p>\n
minitmirn of’-not”lessV’than 3 years of service in the cadre of<\/p>\n
VA Asisistant Engineers for promotion as the Assistant Executive<\/p>\n
r  <\/p>\n
 The petitioner had filed objections to the draft cadre<\/p>\n
“i’–!andi’Recruitment Rules. It was his case that he had rendered 22<\/p>\n
 years of service in the post of Draftman \/ Junior Engineer and<\/p>\n
to include Draftsman shi%in the rules for promotion as<\/p>\n
Assistant Executive En ineer. He had re eated. his<\/p>\n
representation and pointed out that the Departn;1’e’n\u00abt..’of:<\/p>\n
Planning and in the Bangalore Developmentaf\ufb01tutliorirty, <\/p>\n
Draftsman ship is treated as equivalergt’ alccl\ufb01pljomlaliiicnpCivil<\/p>\n
Engineering and a promotioiial”~avenuev- has been “pro-vid–ed and’<\/p>\n
that similar provision be made–in”-the~..Cadre’ andfiecfuitment
\nRules of Karnataka Housing     0 0<\/p>\n
6. The: v-first:ilresporidentj.._had’2\u00ablfinalized the draft<\/p>\n
amendment on’l’l\u00a7’In respect of promotion to the cadre
\nof Assistant00Execu_tiv’eilEn~g_ineers the method of recruitment the<\/p>\n
sari’*:e \u00a7prov_isionl”a’sv-.i.n.the draft Rules has been retained except<\/p>\n
=ih_a:_ i’n.,_ptl1et’..cVas.e of Diploma Holders the minimum service<\/p>\n
lsh\u00a3o0uldv.be vears and in case of degree holders, it should be 3<\/p>\n
 A years.v,Tlhe petitioner however, has not received any reply to the<\/p>\n
0  V 0 ‘1’e}_:>.fese ntation.\n<\/p>\n
7. The third respondent had submitted a proposal on<\/p>\n
09.12.2005 to state thagthe peti’tione1′ possessed the<\/p>\n
qualification of Draftsman (Civil) and since the<\/p>\n
been incorporated in the Cadre and Recruitme,ri’t’*r.Ruie’s _and”heu <\/p>\n
has been denied promotion of AslsistantiEngineer.holdingithe<\/p>\n
Drafsmanship in Civil Eiigineering <\/p>\n
09.08.2006, the third respondeiiitl:A’hasusentharereidortiito the first
\nrespondent stating thatithie i\ufb02jifi\ufb01lldlng the Rules of
\nrecruitment suitably   the next meeting of
\nthe i:t’akev’n_ iii_;the’\u00e9oard meeting would be
\ncomrVnluiiliic’ated’_V   As there were no further
\ndevelopments,’  repeated his representation. In<\/p>\n
response, the ‘second respondent has informed the petitioner that<\/p>\n
  does’ n.ot’..possess the essential educational qualification for<\/p>\n
  post of Assistant Executive Engineer and as<\/p>\n
fares the “review of Rules of Recruitment is concerned, it would<\/p>\n
2   be’\u00ab..placed= before the Board and further action would be taken<\/p>\n
lfafter decision of the Board. It is in this background that the<\/p>\n
petitioner is before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
“\u00e9<\/p>\n
8. The counsel for the petitioner would s1i\u00abb.rnitl:itiiatlthe<\/p>\n
petitioner possesses the educational qua_l.ific_at.ion.:”nainely, <\/p>\n
National Trade Certificate in is<\/p>\n
treated as equivalent to a diploma in Civil Eng.i’nee:rin_g in terms v<\/p>\n
of the Government Order  iandigtherefore it is
\nnot correct to hold tha.il:i”the\u00a7l~. not possess the
\nprescribed   promotion to the
\npost of  ‘ <\/p>\n
 __  that for holding the post of
\n in Civil Engineering is also<\/p>\n
pVre3s.cri_bcdv. The*pe_t_i_tionei’ who possesses the National Trade<\/p>\n
‘ ‘D_raftsrnat1 (Civil) have already been appointed as<\/p>\n
lA_slsistant’Enrgineer. There was no substance in the contention<\/p>\n
 thatdid not possess a Civil Engineering degree and<\/p>\n
  ‘iti1elrefore could not be promoted. Since the petitioner posses the<\/p>\n
rlqualification of a Diploma Holder in Civil Engineering, he is<\/p>\n
en_titled to the post of Assistant Engineer insofar as experience<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
of five years is concerned, the petitioner contends thatine has<\/p>\n
been working as Assistant Engineer since 22 y-f;;’El’i’S..iVfIT(‘j’1;i.”,I.;._I’iii\u20ac<\/p>\n
date on which he was placed on independent. ~e–.\u00bb.ar:gei  the p_:os–t.. <\/p>\n
of Assistant Engineer under Rule’\u00bb.__32:1’of_ ii’the..KAarnatai\u00a7a__ Civil<\/p>\n
Services Rules. If this is taken into conside3fatiC$_n; tne..petitionerri’<\/p>\n
meets the criteria of experien_ee:’and*therefore.__is_entit1ed for
\npromotion and would is’tiit)_rnit’ theevi:i_deiiiaVl of promotion is<\/p>\n
arbitrary and_in–iv:io\u00a7ation oftize Article 320$ the Constitution of<\/p>\n
India,   A  ii<\/p>\n
10f-.._ViBy  the respondent having entered<\/p>\n
appearance and ihavv.i,n_.g filed statement of objections to contend<\/p>\n
A *tli_at tthe,_pe:t’i’tioner’s claim to promotion to the post of Assistant<\/p>\n
I\u00a3h_tecutVi.ize Ezigineer, retrospectiveiy, from the date on which his<\/p>\n
 AJuniors__iwere promoted is not maintainable on the ground that<\/p>\n
ii -..viti1e…iApetitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and he was<\/p>\n
-“regularized in the post of Second Division Assistant.<\/p>\n
3;\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter, by virtue of an order dated 3_E.03.2000 designated<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
10<\/span><\/p>\n
the petitioner as Draughtsman instead of Second Division<\/p>\n
‘Assistant with effect from 01.07.1993 and the petitiovne1*..haying<\/p>\n
been granted pa}\/\u00abscale of Rs.4575~8400 applicahie-0  <\/p>\n
of Draughtsrnan. Though the .pe\u00bbtitione:f’pplaCi\u00a2d <\/p>\n
independent charge of the post of  on <\/p>\n
petitioner claims to be promotedas Assistant…Engi’neer’ and the<\/p>\n
pay of the petitioner w'”as_fi_xedminiilejpay~scale”ofithe post of
\nAssistant Engineer only  15.10.2004 and<\/p>\n
thereforeiithe.i}p_etitii’oner’could notihe considered for promotion
\nto the ‘puostppof Assistairi-t__iiExecutive Engineer as he was not<\/p>\n
eligible to the ‘revised cadre and recruitment Rules, which<\/p>\n
 ‘conterilplates._ the requisite experience of 5 years in the cadre of<\/p>\n
 ~_ V”ssistant\ufb01ngirieer and hence, the denial of promotion.<\/p>\n
0’   Given the circumstances that the petitioner possessed<\/p>\n
 degree equivalent to that of diploma holder in Civil<\/p>\n
-“Engineering, which was the qualification prescribed and the<\/p>\n
fact that the petitioner also was placed in independent charge as<\/p>\n
%<\/p>\n
Assistant Engineer with effect from .14.06.2000. The denial of<\/p>\n
promotion merely on the ground that he was fo1’rnali’yi’j;3.r_’On:1ioted<\/p>\n
as Assistant Executive only in the year 2004,  <\/p>\n
not possess the requisite qualification is a dcenialiiof._the”acttial<\/p>\n
services rendered by the petitioner. aridtihe pert1)rrnai1ce=.’ofrthe..L<\/p>\n
duties as Assistant Executive iri”i’independe’r;t_ oihairge\ufb02i<\/p>\n
The petitioner’s qua.l_ifi.cation  the qualification<\/p>\n
prescribeidi,”‘  would meet both the conditions,<\/p>\n
namely,’ the_qua.l_ifi~eation__:ias “Well as the criteria of experience.
\nTherefore, ith-e_de’nial’ of the promotion to the petitioner is<\/p>\n
 as rightly contended in violation of Article 14 of<\/p>\n
 ~_th.e_Co1is’t’itutiori. of India. Hence, the writ petitioner is allowed.<\/p>\n
Annex’ure”–i P is quashed.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent is directed to consider the case of the
\npetitioner to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer<\/p>\n
retrospectively, from the dag his juniors were promoted and<\/p>\n
E2.\n<\/p>\n
grant him ah consequential beiaefits within a <\/p>\n
weeks, if not earlier, from the date o\ufb02eceipt’ ‘Of”aEC_\u20acfi’i’fied copy’ . <\/p>\n
of this order.\n<\/p>\n
 _ ‘v\u00ab…_ ju\u00a7ge_.”\n<\/p>\n
J}<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri S S Menasagi S\/O Sri. … vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 16 September, 2009 Author: Anand Byrareddy 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 16″‘ DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009 BEFORE: THE HON’BLE MR. EUSTICE ANAND 1BTYj}\u00a7g,gig;5\u00a2DY E Q WRIT PETTTTON No. i93: […]<\/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-24307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri S S Menasagi S\/O Sri. ... vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 16 September, 2009 - 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\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri S S Menasagi S\/O Sri. ... vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-28T00:27:58+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri S S Menasagi S\\\/O Sri. … vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 16 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-28T00:27:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1556,\"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\\\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Sri S S Menasagi S\\\/O Sri. ... vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-28T00:27:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri S S Menasagi S\\\/O Sri. … vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 16 September, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri S S Menasagi S\/O Sri. ... vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 16 September, 2009 - 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\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri S S Menasagi S\/O Sri. ... vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-28T00:27:58+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri S S Menasagi S\/O Sri. … vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 16 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-28T00:27:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009"},"wordCount":1556,"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\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009","name":"Sri S S Menasagi S\/O Sri. ... vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its ... on 16 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-28T00:27:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-s-s-menasagi-so-sri-vs-state-of-karnataka-rep-by-its-on-16-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri S S Menasagi S\/O Sri. … vs State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 16 September, 2009"}]},{"@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\/24307","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=24307"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/24307\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=24307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=24307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=24307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}