Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)Article 342 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Pankaj Kumar Saha vs The Sub-Divisional Officer,Islampur & ... on 12 February, 1996
In Pankaj Kumar Saha Vs. Sub Divisional Officer, Islampur & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1728, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined a case wherein the caste certificate was cancelled and petitioner therein was directed to produce the Presidential Notification published under Article 341 (1) of the Constitution. The Court held that the castes included in such an order are not subjected to scope of judicial review and the Court is not competent to go into the question of synonymous of the caste.
Nityanand Sharma & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 2 February, 1996
While deciding said case reliance was placed upon the earlier judgments in Nityanand Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2306. In the said case the Court has observed as under:-
Mrs. Valsamma Paul vs Cochin University And Others on 4 January, 1996
In Mrs. Valsamma Paul Vs. Kochin University & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 1011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the issue of entitlement for admission in educational institution to the candidates belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and held that only those persons who are born in the said castes or whose caste has subsequently been included by amendment in accordance with law are entitled for the benefit. The Apex Court held that a person belonging to general category but adopted by scheduled castes person is not entitled for the benefit under the reservation meant for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes persons. Even the spouse of inter-caste marriage is not entitled to get such a benefit.
State Of Maharashtra vs Milind & Ors on 28 November, 2000
The Apex Court has repeatedly held that the list of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes is notified State-wise and the list is to be published by the President and thereafter any amendment therein can only be made by an Act of Parliament. A person who is member of Scheduled Tribes in other State may not be treated as member of Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes, in the State where such caste is not notified in the concerned list prepared under Article 341 and Article 342 of the Constitution of India. The issue in that regard has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah (Supra) and in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Milind & Others reported in AIR 2001 SC 393.
Parsram And Anr vs Shivchand And Ors on 28 November, 1968
In Parsram & Anr. Vs. Shivchand & Ors., AIR 1969 SC 597, the Apex Court considered the scope of the provisions of article 341 while deciding an issue in election petition, wherein the Court held that it was not open to the Court to scrutinise whether a person falls within a particular caste and Courts are not permitted to go beyond the notifications issued under the said provisions. Such issues are not permissible to be entertained in view of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. Holding an inquiry in this regard is not permissible in view of the provisions contained in Article 341 of the Constitution.
Action Committee On Issue Of Caste ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 July, 1994
The Apex Court in the case of Marri Chandra Shekhar RAO vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Others reported in 1990 (3) SCC 130 and in the case of State of Maharashtra & Another vs. Union of India & Another reported in 1994 (5) SCC 244, has laid down that the benefit available in original State, where the particular caste was notified as Scheduled Tribe, cannot be availed of in other State of India after migration.