Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.44 seconds)
State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Sanjay K. Nimje on 16 January, 2007 cites

State Of Maharashtra vs Milind & Ors on 28 November, 2000

"The appellant having belonged to Koshti caste claimed to be included in the scheduled tribe of Halba and obtained an appointment as Assistant Engineer. When his appointment was sought to be terminated on the basis that he did not belong to scheduled tribe by the Government a writ petition was filed before the High Court challenging that order which was allowed. That order is questioned in this appeal. The questions arising in this case are covered by the decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors. 2000 (7) SCALE 628 and was got to be allowed, however, the benefits derived till now shall be available to the appellant to the effect that his appointment as Assistant Engineer shall stand protected but no further. The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 616 - S V Patil - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr on 31 October, 2006

The extent of jurisdiction of the Caste Scrutiny Committee came up for consideration before this Court in State of Maharashtra and Others v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr. [2006 (10) SCALE 575 : 2007 (1) SCC 80] wherein this Court categorically held that the Caste Scrutiny Committee has the requisite jurisdiction in relation thereto, stating:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 118 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Bank Of India & Anr vs Avinash D. Mandivikar & Ors on 14 September, 2005

We may also notice that ordinarily a person, who has obtained appointment on the basis of a false certificate, cannot retain the said benefit. [See Bank of India and Another v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 690, Ram Saran v. I.G. of Police, CRPF & Ors. 2006 (2) SCALE 131 and The Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu, Civil Appeal No. 5868 of 2006, disposed of on 14.12.2006] In a situation of this nature, whether the court will refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 204 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ram Saran vs I.G. Of Police, Crpf And Ors on 2 February, 2006

We may also notice that ordinarily a person, who has obtained appointment on the basis of a false certificate, cannot retain the said benefit. [See Bank of India and Another v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 690, Ram Saran v. I.G. of Police, CRPF & Ors. 2006 (2) SCALE 131 and The Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu, Civil Appeal No. 5868 of 2006, disposed of on 14.12.2006] In a situation of this nature, whether the court will refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 63 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Supdt. Of Post Offices And Ors vs R. Valasina Babu on 14 December, 2006

We may also notice that ordinarily a person, who has obtained appointment on the basis of a false certificate, cannot retain the said benefit. [See Bank of India and Another v. Avinash D. Mandivikar and Others, (2005) 7 SCC 690, Ram Saran v. I.G. of Police, CRPF & Ors. 2006 (2) SCALE 131 and The Superintendent of Post Offices & Ors. v. R. Valasina Babu, Civil Appeal No. 5868 of 2006, disposed of on 14.12.2006] In a situation of this nature, whether the court will refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 36 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Sandeep Subhash Parate vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 24 August, 2006

This aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court in Sandeep Subhash Parate v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [2006 (8) SCALE 503] From the order of the Caste Scrutiny Committee itself, it is evident that the father of the respondent was shown in the primary school register as belonging to 'Koshti' caste. They were not members of Scheduled Tribe. They were not even 'Koshti-Halbas'.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 53 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1