Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.31 seconds)Shalini vs New English High Scl.Assn.& Ors on 12 December, 2013
The interpretation which has been
placed on the provisions of Section 10 by the Judgment in
Shalini V. New English High School Assn., (2013) 16 SCC
526 is evidently incorrect.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 January, 2004
'69.3. The decisions of this Court in [R.Vishwanatha
Pillai V. State of Kerala (2004) 2 SCC 105] and in [Union
of India V. Dattaray (2008) 4 SCC 612] which were
rendered by Benches of three Judges laid down the principle
of law that where a benefit is secured by an individual – such
as an appointment to a post or admission to an educational
institution – on the basis that the candidate belongs to a
reserved category for which the benefit is reserved, the
invalidation of the caste or tribe claim upon verification would
result in the appointment or, as the case may be, the
admission being rendered void or non est.
Raju Ramsing Vasave vs Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors on 29 August, 2008
31. The Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent refers to the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court between Raju Ramsing Vasave V.
Mohan Deorao Bhivapurkar reported in (2008) 9 SCC at Page 54
wherein at Special Pages 55 and 56, it is held as under:
Kum. Madhuri Patil & Anr vs Add1. Commnr., Tribal Development, ... on 28 April, 1997
'21. We are of the view that for the purpose of
examining the caste claim under the Rules, the following
observations of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra),
still hold the field:-
Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner on 2 September, 1994
'..... has been relied upon by the High Court in the
impugned judgment in this case to hold that the appellant did
not belong to 'Mahadeo Koli' tribe. Before the decision of
this Court in Madhuri Patil V. Commissioner Tribal
Development [(1994) 6 SCC 241] the appellant had been
appointed in the service of Nabard on 28.02.1992 and since
1992 for long nineteen years, he has been in service.
Invoking our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution, we order that the initial appointment of the
appellant in the service of Nabard will not be disturbed, but
the appellant will not be granted any benefit as a member of
the Scheduled Tribe including any promotional benefit and
promotional benefit, if any, granted to the appellant as a
member of the Scheduled Tribe shall be cancelled. We
http://www.judis.nic.in
24
make it clear that the relief extended is not intended to be a
precedent and shall not be relied upon to grant similar relief.'
Anand vs Committee For S.&V. Of Tribe Claims &Ors on 8 November, 2011
38. At this stage, in regard to the procedure to be adhered to
relating to the verification of Community Certificate, this Court aptly
points out the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court between Anand V.
Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claims and Others
reported in (2012) 1 Supreme Court Cases at Page 113 at Special
Pages 120 and 121 at Paragraph Nos.21 to 23, it is observed as
under: