Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.24 seconds)Article 341 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College And Ors on 2 May, 1990
i. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) and Bir Singh (supra),
it is well settled that benefits of reservation granted in one State
cannot be extended to reserved category candidates belonging to
another State;
Jagdish Saran & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 28 January, 1980
10.1 Insofar as the reliance placed by learned counsel for the
petitioner on the decisions in Dr. Tanvi Behl (supra), Jagadish
Saran v. Union of India (supra), Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union
of India (supra), Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of India
(supra), Nikhil Himthani v. State of Uttarakhand (supra),
and Medical Council of India v. State of Kerala (supra) is
concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the same is
(Uploaded on 13/04/2026 at 02:32:22 PM)
(Downloaded on 13/04/2026 at 07:02:01 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:13726] (20 of 26) [CW-4247/2026]
misplaced. The controversy in the present case does not relate to
the validity of a 100% domicile-based reservation, which formed
the core issue in the aforesaid judgments. Rather, the issue herein
pertains to the permissibility of restricting the benefits of
reservation to candidates belonging to the State of Rajasthan.
Such a measure, as discussed hereinabove, aligns with the
constitutional framework and does not amount to an
impermissible exclusion. Consequently, the principles laid down in
the aforementioned decisions, being rendered in the context of
wholesale domicile-based reservation or materially different
factual matrices, are clearly distinguishable and do not advance
the case of the petitioner.
Action Committee On Issue Of Caste ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 July, 1994
"4. Two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court
in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao v. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical
College and Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate
to Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra v. Union of India have taken the view that
merely because in the migrant State the same caste is
recognized as Scheduled Caste, the migrant cannot be
recognized as Scheduled Caste of the migrant State.
Article 342A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
THE CONSTITUTION (NINETY-THIRD AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005
Vivek Gupta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation And ... on 25 September, 2003
In this respect, learned
counsel has also placed reliance upon Jagadish Saran v. Union
of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768, Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of
India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of
India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, Nikhil Himthani v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2013) 10 SCC 237, and Medical Council of
India v. State of Kerala, (2019) 13 SCC 185.
Medical Council Of India vs The State Of Kerala on 12 September, 2018
In this respect, learned
counsel has also placed reliance upon Jagadish Saran v. Union
of India, (1980) 2 SCC 768, Dr. Pradeep Jain v. Union of
India, (1984) 3 SCC 654, Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of
India, (2003) 11 SCC 146, Nikhil Himthani v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2013) 10 SCC 237, and Medical Council of
India v. State of Kerala, (2019) 13 SCC 185.
Bir Singh vs Delhi Jal Board . on 30 August, 2018
i. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) and Bir Singh (supra),
it is well settled that benefits of reservation granted in one State
cannot be extended to reserved category candidates belonging to
another State;