Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Ghanshyam Kisan Borikar vs L.D. Engineering College And Ors. on 21 January, 1986

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Foundation ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 5 July, 2004

12. It is, however, necessary to give proper meaning to the expressions 'for the purpose of this Constitution' and 'in relation to that State' appearing in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The High Court of Gujarat has taken the view in two decisions, namely, Kum. Manju Singh vs. The Dean, B.J. Medical College, and Ghanshyam Kisan Borikar vs. L.D. Engineering College, to which our attention was drawn, that the phrase 'for the purposes of this Constitution' cannot be and should not be made subservient to the phrase 'in relation to that State' and therefore, it was held in those two decisions that in consequence, the classification made by one State placing a particular caste or tribe in the category of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes would entitle a member of that caste or tribe to all the benefits, privileges and protections under the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 7 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

M.S. Malathi vs The Commissioner, Nagpur Division And ... on 3 November, 1988

19. The Gujarat High Court in Kum. Manju Singh v. The Dean, B. J Medical College, Ghanshyam Kisan Borikar v L.D. Engineering College, have expressed contrary views. With respect, in the said reported decisions of Gujarat High Court, while the expression for our purposes of the Constitution in Art. 341(I) was over emphasized and due consideration was not given to the expressions 'in respect of ...............' and 'in relation to that State or Union Territory'. With respect, the expressions 'for the purposes of the Constitution' and 'in relation to that state' are both to be given effect to and neither the former expression is subservient to the latter nor vice versa. It would be not correct to observe that while the Scheduled Castes are to be specified in relation to a particular State, once specified as Scheduled Caste, members of such castes throughout India would be entitled to claim benefits conferred by Constitution upon Scheduled Castes. We have pointed out that Scheduled Castes are specified in relation to each State and Union Territory in order that in that State or Union Territory castes are given protection and special benefits conferred by Constitution upon Scheduled Castes.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Sudhakar Vithal Kumbhare vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 23 March, 2001

12. It is, however, necessary to give proper meaning to the expressions for the purposes of this Constitution and in relation to that State appearing in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The High Court of Gujarat has taken the view in two decisions, namely, Kum Manju Singh v. Dean, B. J. Medical College and Ghanshyam Kisan Borikar v. L. D. Engineering College to which our attention was drawn, that the phrase for the purposes of this Constitution cannot be and should not be made subservient to the phrase in relation to that State and therefore, it was held In those two decisions that in consequence the classification made by one State placing a particular caste or tribe in the category of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes would entitle a member of that caste or tribe to all the benefits, privileges and protections under the Constitution of India.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 129 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Dsssb vs Vikas Kumar on 27 November, 2013

12. It is, however, necessary to give proper meaning to the expressions "for the purpose of this Constitution" and "in relation to that State" appearing in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The High Court of Gujarat has taken the view in two decisions, namely, Kum. Manju Singh v. The Dean, B.J. Medical College, AIR 1986 Gujarat 175 and Ghanshyam Kisan Borikar v. L.D. Engineering College, AIR 1987 Guj 83 to which our attention was drawn, that the phrase "for the purposes of this Constitution" cannot be and should not be made subservient to the phrase "in relation to that State" and, therefore, it was held in those two decisions that in consequence, the classification made by one State placing a particular caste or tribe in the category of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes would entitle a member of that caste or tribe to all the benefits, privileges and protections under the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 7 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Kavita Khorwal vs The Delhi University & Ors. on 3 November, 2008

12. It is, however, necessary to give proper meaning to the expressions ‗for the purpose of this Constitution' and ‗in relation to that State' appearing in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution. The High Court of Gujarat has taken the view in two decisions, namely, Kum. Manju Singh v. The Dean, B.J. Medical College, AIR 1986 Gujarat 175 and Ghanshyam Kisan Borikar v. L.D. Engineering College, AIR 1987 Gujarat 83 to which our attention was drawn, that the phrase ‗for the purposes of this Constitution' cannot be and should not be made subservient to the phrase ‗in relation to that State' and, therefore, it was held in those two decisions that in consequence, the classification made by one State placing a particular caste or tribe in the category of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes would entitle a member of that caste or tribe to all the benefits, privileges and protections under the Constitution of India.
Delhi High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 2 - S R Bhat - Full Document
1