Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.03 seconds)
A. Prathyusha vs Registrar, Ntr University Of Health ... on 1 December, 1999 cites

Smt. D. Neelima vs The Dean Of P.G. Studies, A.P. ... on 12 February, 1993

6. The law on the aspects dealt with by the Government Orders has undergone a sea change. Cases where a SC/ST woman marrying a man belonging to other caste and claiming reservation, cases where children of forward caste parents taken in adoption into family of SC/ST/BC claiming reservation have repeatedly come up before the Courts. The cases where off-spring of an inter-caste marriage couple-either of the spouses belonging to SC/ST - claiming reservation are not new. In all the three categories of cases, the claim was for a preferential treatment either under Articles 15(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution of India. In all the cases decided by the Supreme Court falling in one of the first two categories, the test laid down is that whether the person claiming reservation under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India had advantageous start in the life of being brought up in forward family. With regard to the woman of a forward caste marrying a man of SC/ST, a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. D. Neelima v. The Dean of P.G. Studies, Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Universities, Hyderabad, AIR 1993 AP 299, held that though all married woman become members of the families of their husbands snapping all ties from parental homes and acquire status as a SC/ST/BC, still they are not entitled, by virtue of marriage, to claim reservation under Article 15(4) and Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 42 - Cited by 19 - S B Majmudar - Full Document

Mrs. Valsamma Paul vs Cochin University And Others on 4 January, 1996

In view of the subsequent law, the orders of the Central and State Governments have to be applied having regard to the tests laid down by the Supreme Court. Indeed, even the order of the State Government passed relying on the order of the Central Government, takes note of this when it indicates that where a child of inter-caste marriage couple can be treated as belonging to SC/ST/BC and after examining each case, then only the benefits under Article 15(4) or 16(4) of the Constitution can be considered. An off-spring of an inter-caste marriage couple cannot be straightaway conferred with the benefit of reservation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 245 - Full Document

Director Of Tribal Welfare, Government ... vs Laveti Giri And Another on 18 April, 1995

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Kumool is not a party to this proceeding. The certificate and the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer dated 10-11-1999 do not appear to be credible. In fact, the inquiry alleged to have been conducted by MRI-1, Kurnool, based on which the proceedings of the Mandal Revenue Officer were issued, is not in accordance with the procedure of inquiry mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kum. Madhuri Patil v. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, (1996) 4 SCC 241, and Director of Tribal Welfare, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Laveti Giri and another, .
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 164 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1