Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)

E.V.Chinnaiah vs State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors on 5 November, 2004

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in view of the constitutional provisions contained in Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India occupy a special position. Protective discrimination and affirmative action for the downtrodden people are envisaged in our constitutional scheme despite the fact that the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is of great significance. [See E.V. Chinnaiah Vs. State of A.P. and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 394] When, thus, a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes obtains a false certificate with a view to gain undue advantage to which he or she was not otherwise entitled to would amount to commission of fraud. Fraudulent acts are not encouraged by the courts. A person for the purpose of obtaining the benefits of the Presidential Order must fulfil the condition of being a member of Scheduled Castes and continue to be so. Conversion of a member of Scheduled Castes to a different religion may not, in certain circumstances, deprive him of the said benefits although there appears to be some divergence of views in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 186 - Full Document

Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi And Ors on 9 October, 2003

[See also Vijay Shekhar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2004) 4 SCC 666 and Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another Vs. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325] Yet recently in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [JT 2005 (7) SC 530], a Division Bench of this Court inter alia following Ram Chandra Singh (supra) and other decisions observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 485 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Vijay Shekhar & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 April, 2004

[See also Vijay Shekhar and Another Vs. Union of India and others, (2004) 4 SCC 666 and Vice-Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another Vs. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325] Yet recently in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [JT 2005 (7) SC 530], a Division Bench of this Court inter alia following Ram Chandra Singh (supra) and other decisions observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Ram Preeti Yadav vs U.P. Board Of High School And ... on 3 September, 2003

[See also Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and Others, (2003) 8 SCC 311] Any action by the authorities or by the people claiming a right/ privilege under the Constitution which subverts the constitutional purpose must be treated as a fraud on the Constitution. The Constitution does not postulate conferment of any special benefit on those who do not belong to the category of people for whom the provision was made.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 269 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1