Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Dayaram vs Sudhir Batham & Ors on 11 October, 2011
Madhurai Patil provides for verification only to avoid
false and bogus claims. The said scheme and the
directions therein have been satisfactorily functioning
http://www.judis.nic.in
7
for the last one-and-a-half decades. If there are any
shortcomings, the Government can always come up
with an appropriate legislation to substitute the said
scheme. We see no reason why the procedure laid
down in Madhuri Patil should not continue in the
absence of any legislation governing the matter."
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 8 November, 2012
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on a decision of the
Supreme Court reported in 2013 (4) SCC 465 (Ayyaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs.
State of Maharashtra), and submitted that the employer or the State Level Caste
Scrutiny Committee is not well within their rights to initiate enquiry by the
Committee in the absence of any substantial materials available with them to the
effect that the Community Certificates obtained already by the petitioners have
been issued without proper enquiry.
T.Gurusamy vs The District Collector on 29 September, 2008
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all these Writ Petitions, in
unison, submitted that the employers took a stand that the enquiry commenced
on the basis of third party complaints or petitions received in the name of SC/ST
Associations (unrecognised) and it is a common factor that such complaints are
given with a mala-fide intention, either due to animosity by the fellow employees
or others. In fact, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.10292 of 1989, by
order dated 18.06.1996 held that the third parties have no role in the verification
of the Community Certificates of the concerned candidates. To fortify their
submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on a decision of this
http://www.judis.nic.in
8
Court reported in 1999 (III) MLJ 88 (Gurusamy Vs. The District Collector,
Coimbatore), wherein it was held that the respondents (authorities) are barred
from commencing enquiries based on the third party's complaints. Hence,
learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per amended G.O.Ms.No.
106, there should be some material for the Committee to come to a conclusion
that the Community Certificate is not genuine and therefore the Committee has
to meet and thereafter only if necessary, it can refer the matter for enquiry to
the Vigilance Cell and the Committee, suo-motu cannot send for verification by
the Vigilance Cell, which is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.106 as amended. Learned
counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the respondents have commenced
enquiry even as against the persons who have already retired after completion of
more than three decades of service. Even in such cases, the respondents have
not applied their mind as to whether there exists any adverse material
warranting initiation of such enquiries, which is nothing but harassment and an
attempt to strip their Constitutional rights.
R. Kandasmy vs The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust on 22 August, 1997
In support of their submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court
reported in 1997 (7) SCC 505 (R.Kandasamy Vs. Chief Engineer, Madras Port
Trust), wherein it was held that the Community Certificate issued to a Scheduled
Tribe candidate by the Tahsildar prior to 11.11.1989 is a good and valid
Community Certificate for all purposes so long as such a Certificate is not
cancelled and the authorities cannot decline to take that into consideration and
http://www.judis.nic.in
9
insist upon a fresh Community Certificate from the Revenue Divisional Officer.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1