Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.15 seconds)Article 46 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
E.V.Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 5 November, 2004
In the case of E V Chinnaiah (supra) what has been
prohibited by the Supreme Court was providing reservation to an
upper community or class of person be dividing a Scheduled Caste
into further category which has the effect of inclusion or exclusion
something beyond the Presidential List. In the present case, we see
no such action in the impugned policy decision of the State
Government. However, during the course of hearing the learned
Senior Counsel representing the petitioner tried to indicate that some
of the members so identified as weaker section and who are
classified as "Mahadalits" are also granted benefit by providing
reservation in case of public appointment. If that be so, specific
Patna High Court CWJC No.1564 of 2015 dt.02-11-2017
10/10
instances of such reservation in employment may be challenge in
accordance with law which can be examined on the fact that come
on record but on such consideration the general Resolution of the
State Government impugned before us which is found to be within
the permissible powers available to the State Government under the
Constitution, we see no reason to interfere into the matter.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Narendra Kumar & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 17 July, 2009
Once for the reasons as has been reproduced
hereinabove similar prayer made in the case of Narendra Kumar
(supra), has been decided we see no reason to reopen the issue now.
Accordingly, the prayer for the Aayog is unconstitutional is
quashed.
1