Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 579 (0.95 seconds)
Documents citing Kum. Madhuri Patil & Anr vs Add1. Commnr., Tribal Development, ... on 28 April, 1997

Chhaya Namdeorao Binekar vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 24 April, 2002

The challenge is that, the person associated with the senior Deputy Superintendent of Police, for investigation was not competent, in that he was not Research Officer/Tribal Development or Social Welfare Officer, who alone could have been associated in view of the decision of the Apex Court , Madhuri Patil and Anr. v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and Ors. case No. 2.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 4 - R S Mohite - Full Document

Ajaykumar Yadaorao Nikhar vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 November, 2011

24 In Prajakta vs. State of Maharashtra, (supra), Division Bench that as per subsequent judgment in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development, Thane and others (Second), along with the Vigilance Cell, one Research Officer/Tribal Development or Social Welfare Officer would be associated in finding the social status of eligibility of the officers.
Bombay High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 10 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

M.Divya vs State Level Scrutiny Committee on 18 July, 2019

29.In any event, the respondents are merely carrying out their obligation cast on them though under the Constitution of India to verify the genuineness of the petitioner's claim in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others 1994 SCC (6) 241 and the petitioner has been merely called upon to giver her written representation to the letter of the 2nd respondent.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suryanarayan Shantaram Chintaloo vs The Union Of India And Others on 13 March, 2020

The guidelines were detailed in the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (supra) for constitution of the committees by the State Government for scrutinising claims of candidates belonging to a scheduled caste, ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 06:03:50 ::: 27 wp 9885.19+ tribe or a backward community designated for reservations. It is no gain saying that in other States the committees are not constituted. The material is not placed before us about the mechanism provided in other States for verification of caste claims. However in the State of Maharashtra the mechanism is provided for verification of the caste certificates. The petitioners are appointed in the State of Maharashtra. They are bound by the provisions of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. It is also no gain saying on part of the petitioners that they are appointed prior to the enforcement of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 and condition does not exist for submission of the validity certificate in their appointment order.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document

Arun Shankar Limje vs The Union Of India And Others on 13 March, 2020

The guidelines were detailed in the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (supra) for constitution of the committees by the State Government for scrutinising claims of candidates belonging to a scheduled caste, ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 06:03:45 ::: 27 wp 9885.19+ tribe or a backward community designated for reservations. It is no gain saying that in other States the committees are not constituted. The material is not placed before us about the mechanism provided in other States for verification of caste claims. However in the State of Maharashtra the mechanism is provided for verification of the caste certificates. The petitioners are appointed in the State of Maharashtra. They are bound by the provisions of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. It is also no gain saying on part of the petitioners that they are appointed prior to the enforcement of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 and condition does not exist for submission of the validity certificate in their appointment order.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document

Ashabai Bhila Koli Alias Ashabai Devman ... vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd And Others on 13 March, 2020

The guidelines were detailed in the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (supra) for constitution of the committees by the State Government for scrutinising claims of candidates belonging to a scheduled caste, ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 06:03:34 ::: 27 wp 9885.19+ tribe or a backward community designated for reservations. It is no gain saying that in other States the committees are not constituted. The material is not placed before us about the mechanism provided in other States for verification of caste claims. However in the State of Maharashtra the mechanism is provided for verification of the caste certificates. The petitioners are appointed in the State of Maharashtra. They are bound by the provisions of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. It is also no gain saying on part of the petitioners that they are appointed prior to the enforcement of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 and condition does not exist for submission of the validity certificate in their appointment order.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document

Mala Madhukarrao Burde Alias Mala ... vs The Union Of India And Others on 13 March, 2020

The guidelines were detailed in the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (supra) for constitution of the committees by the State Government for scrutinising claims of candidates belonging to a scheduled caste, ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 06:03:55 ::: 27 wp 9885.19+ tribe or a backward community designated for reservations. It is no gain saying that in other States the committees are not constituted. The material is not placed before us about the mechanism provided in other States for verification of caste claims. However in the State of Maharashtra the mechanism is provided for verification of the caste certificates. The petitioners are appointed in the State of Maharashtra. They are bound by the provisions of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. It is also no gain saying on part of the petitioners that they are appointed prior to the enforcement of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 and condition does not exist for submission of the validity certificate in their appointment order.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document

Rekha Babulal Mahale vs The Union Of India And Others on 13 March, 2020

The guidelines were detailed in the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and another Vs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others (supra) for constitution of the committees by the State Government for scrutinising claims of candidates belonging to a scheduled caste, ::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 06:03:40 ::: 27 wp 9885.19+ tribe or a backward community designated for reservations. It is no gain saying that in other States the committees are not constituted. The material is not placed before us about the mechanism provided in other States for verification of caste claims. However in the State of Maharashtra the mechanism is provided for verification of the caste certificates. The petitioners are appointed in the State of Maharashtra. They are bound by the provisions of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001. It is also no gain saying on part of the petitioners that they are appointed prior to the enforcement of the Maharashtra Act No. XXIII of 2001 and condition does not exist for submission of the validity certificate in their appointment order.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S V Gangapurwala - Full Document

Suresh Kumar Baitha vs Smmari Lal on 24 October, 2024

It has been pointed out that both the parties have to be examined their respective witnesses and also to prove their documents within a certain time frame and the Caste Scrutiny Committee has been authorized to take proper decision in accordance with law within a period of three month and they have been prescribed Authority in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil and Another versus Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and Others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241 and which have been approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dayaram versus Sudhir Batham and Others reported in (2012) 1 SCC 333 and it has been observed that so long as no guideline has been provided by the Legislature, the guideline shows in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil (Supra) will continue.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - S Prasad - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next