Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.55 seconds)

Dharmendra Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 9 November, 2011

14. This Court has considered the submissions made by both sides and examined the documents placed on record. The law settled in the case of Subhash Chandra (Supra) and followed by the Division Bench in the case of DSSSB & Anr. vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. (supra), being quite clear, needs no further elucidation and is binding on this court. Under ordinary circumstances, in view of the fact that there are no Scheduled Tribes notified in Delhi, this Court would not have hesitated in holding that the petitioner could not obtain the benefit of reservation in the 7.5% quota reserved for Scheduled Tribes based on a certificate in that regard, but the additional affidavit filed by respondents No.2 & 3 reveals that for reasons best known to them, they have continued to maintain the said 7.5% quota for Scheduled Tribes candidates for the academic year 2011- 12, by relying on a Cabinet decision of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi dated W.P.(C) No.4843/2011 and 6078/2011 Page 9 of 13 12.10.2010 to the effect that the existing quota of 7.5% for Scheduled Tribes candidates may be continued till an appropriate decision is taken in respect of the revised draft bill entitled „The Delhi Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Bill, 2010‟. It is inexplicable as to why respondent/Govt. of NCT of Delhi would create a 7.5% quota for Scheduled Tribes, if there are no notified Scheduled Tribes in Delhi. If there are no notified Scheduled Tribes in Delhi, and no person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe notified in another State is permitted to be granted admission in Delhi, then it would result in an absurdity inasmuch as the 7.5% quota seats would remain vacant.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - H Kohli - Full Document

Vibha Verma vs Delhi Technological University & Ors. on 30 November, 2011

11. We are not persuaded by the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. The distinctions which the learned counsel has pointed out will have no bearing or effect on the outcome of the case of the petitioner. No doubt, Mukesh Kumar (supra) was a case which concerned with scheduled caste candidates. However, the issue was identical, namely, whether it was necessary to have a certificate of Delhi origin issued by competent authority of the Government of NCT of Delhi for getting the benefit of reservation. Whether this benefit of reservation is claimed by a scheduled caste candidate or by a OBC candidate will not make any difference. The focal point is the determination of competent authority whose certificate is necessary for claiming the benefit of reservation.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Shri Munish Kumar S/O Shri Ram Kishore vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 31 January, 2012

5. The applicants have filed the rejoinder affidavit, thereby placing reliance upon another judgment of the High Court of Delhi in DSSSB & another v. Mukesh Kumar & others (WP (C) No.610/2011 with connected WPs) decided on 25.7.2011, which judgment has been rendered placing reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Subhash Chandras case (supra) and Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & others, (1990) 3 SCC 130.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bibhash Karmakar vs Chairman on 19 March, 2012

In this regard, he refers to an unreported Division Bench judgment, dated July 25, 2011, of the Delhi High Court in the case of DSSSB & Anr. Vs. Mukesh Kumar & Ors. being WP(c) No. 610,1595 &1596/2011wherein for the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School under Delhi Municipal Corporation advertisement was published by making necessary reservation. Such selection process was called in question. The Division Bench observed 3 that Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in one State could not get the benefit in another State.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - A K Banerjee - Full Document
1