Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College And Ors on 2 May, 1990
5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents relied upon the provisions and guidelines as above and sought to support the impugned order with the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Marri Chandra Sheklmr Rao v. Dean, Seth G. S. Medical College & Ors., 1990 (3) SCC 130. In the facts of that case, the petitioner who was born in the State of Andhra Pradesh in a community recognised as Scheduled Tribe, had come to live in Bombay since the age of 9 years and was denied admission to M.B.B.S, course in Maharashtra as a Scheduled Tribe candidate. The question was whether one who was recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his original birth continued to have the benefits of the privileges in the State of migration or where he later went and the same was decided in the negative, aS expressly stated in the judgment, the question of the petitioner's right to be admitted as a domicile of Maharashtra did not fall for consideration.
Ghanshyam Kisan Borikar vs L.D. Engineering College And Ors. on 21 January, 1986
175 : 1986 (2) GLR 1147 and Ghanshyam Kisan Borikar v. L. D. Engineering College, AIR 1987 Guj. 83.
Action Committee On Issue Of Caste ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 July, 1994
In a subsequent judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., 1994 (5) SCC 244 : 1995 (1) GLR 260 (SC), the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat v. R. L. Patel, AIR 1992 Guj. 42 : 1990 (2) GLR 1163, which took the view that a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in one State was entitled to the benefits of reservation in another State where he migrates and where his tribe is also a Scheduled Tribe, was expressly overruled. The Supreme Court was expressly approached for an authoritative pronouncement to introduce a uniform pattern in regard to the issuance of certificate to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Tribes in view of the difficulties experienced in securing such certificate on account of the instructions dated 22-3-1977 referred to earlier and the subsequent communications. The following observations in paragraph 16 in the said judgment have to be noted in the context of the case in hand :
Article 342 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Gujarat And Anr. vs R.L. Patel on 4 April, 1990
In a subsequent judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Action Committee on issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., 1994 (5) SCC 244 : 1995 (1) GLR 260 (SC), the Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Gujarat v. R. L. Patel, AIR 1992 Guj. 42 : 1990 (2) GLR 1163, which took the view that a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe in one State was entitled to the benefits of reservation in another State where he migrates and where his tribe is also a Scheduled Tribe, was expressly overruled. The Supreme Court was expressly approached for an authoritative pronouncement to introduce a uniform pattern in regard to the issuance of certificate to the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Tribes in view of the difficulties experienced in securing such certificate on account of the instructions dated 22-3-1977 referred to earlier and the subsequent communications. The following observations in paragraph 16 in the said judgment have to be noted in the context of the case in hand :
1