Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 April, 2008
10. K.S. Jayasree (Kumari) v. State of
Kerala, (1976) 3 SCC 730, at page 733 :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (2.46 seconds)Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 April, 2008
10. K.S. Jayasree (Kumari) v. State of Kerala, (1976) 3
SCC 730, at page 733 :
Nair Service Society vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2007
"'Means-test' in this discussion signifies imposition of an
income limit, for the purpose of excluding persons (from
the backward class) whose income is above the said
limit. This submission is very often referred to as the
"creamy layer" argument. Petitioners submit that some
members of the designated backward classes are highly
advanced socially as well as economically and
educationally. It is submitted that they constitute the
forward section of that particular backward class as
forward as any other forward class member and that
they are lapping up all the benefits of reservations meant
for that class, without allowing the benefits to reach the
truly backward members of that class. These persons are
by no means backward and with them a class cannot be
treated as backward. It is pointed out that since Jayasree
[K.S. Jayasree vs. State of Kerala (1976) 3 SCC 730]
almost every decision has accepted the validity of this
submission.
Pritpal Singh vs State Of Punjab Etc on 5 December, 2017
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in case A.K. Doshi vs Union of India
2001(2) SCT 402, Chairman and Managing Director FCI and others vs
Jagdish Balaram Bahira and others 2017(3) SCT 735, Kumari Madhuri
Patil and another vs Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and
others 1995(1) SCT 261, Kumari K.S. Jayasree and another vs The State
of Kerala and another 1977(1) SCR 194.
Union Of India vs Rohit Nathan on 11 March, 2026
But even here economic criterion is worth applying by refusing preferred
treatment to those amongst them who have already benefited by it and improved
their position. And finally reservation must have a time span otherwise
concessions tend to become vested interests. This is not a judgment in a lis in an
adversary system. When the arguments concluded, a statement was made that
the Government of State of Karnataka would appoint a Commission to
determine constitutionally sound and nationally acceptable criteria for
identifying socially and educationally backward classes of citizens for whose
benefit the State action would be taken. This does not purport to be an
exhaustive essay on guide lines but may point to some extent, the direction in
which the proposed Commission should move.”
42
125…… While caste or community is a relevant factor in determining the social
and educational backwardness, it cannot be said that all members of a caste
need be treated as backward and entitled to reservation under Article 15(4) or
Article 16(4). Caste-cum-means test would be a rational test in identifying
persons who are entitled to the benefit of those provisions. This principle has
received acceptance at the hands of this Court in K.S. Jayasree v. State of
Kerala [(1976) 3 SCC 730]. In that case a Commission appointed by the
Government of the State of Kerala to enquire into the social and economic
conditions of the people of that State and to recommend as to what sections of
the people should be extended the benefits under Article 15(4) of the
Constitution found that only the rich amongst certain castes or communities
were enjoying the benefit of reservations made earlier. It, therefore,
recommended adoption of a means-cum-caste/community test for determining
the sections of the people who should be given the benefit under the relevant
constitutional provisions. The State Government accordingly stipulated that
applicants who were members of certain castes or communities and whose
family income was less than Rs 10000 per year were only entitled to reservation
under Article 15(4). The petitioner in the above case who belonged to one such
community but whose family income was above Rs 10,000 per year questioned
the order before the Kerala High Court on the ground that the imposition of the
ceiling of family income was unconstitutional. The learned Single Judge who
heard the petition allowed it. The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court,
however, reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the
petition. On appeal, this Court while affirming the decision of the Division
Bench in the above case on the question of social backwardness observed at pp.
199-200 thus: (SCC p. 735, para 21)
……
1