Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.38 seconds)

Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar vs Vishwanath Pandu Barde & Anr on 22 February, 1995

In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu, (1995) 3 JT (SC) 563 = 1995 AIR SCW 2224; and R. Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 7 JT (SC) 93, this Court had held that economic empowerment is a fundamental right to the poor and the State is enjoined under Articles 15(3), 46 and 39 to provide them opportunities. Thus, education, employment and economic empowerment are some of the programmes, the State has evolved and also provided reservation in admission into educational institution, or in case of other economic benefits under Articles 15(4) and 46 or in appointment to an office or a post under the State under Article 16(4). Therefore, when a member is transplanted into the Dalits, Tribes and OBCs he/she must of necessity also undergo same handicaps, be subject to the same disabilities, disadvantages, indignities or sufferings so as to entitle the candidate to avail the facility of reservation. A candidate who had the advantageous start in life being born in forward caste and had march of advantageous life but is transplanted in Backward Caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, does not become eligible to the benefit of reservation either under Article 15(4) status of Scheduled Caste etc., by voluntary mobility into these categories would play fraud on the Constitution, and would frustrate the benign constitutional policy under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution".
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 110 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

R. Chandevarappa Etc. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors. Etc. Etc on 8 September, 1995

In Murlidhar Dayandeo Kesekar v. Vishwanath Pandu, (1995) 3 JT (SC) 563 = 1995 AIR SCW 2224; and R. Chandevarappa v. State of Karnataka, (1995) 7 JT (SC) 93, this Court had held that economic empowerment is a fundamental right to the poor and the State is enjoined under Articles 15(3), 46 and 39 to provide them opportunities. Thus, education, employment and economic empowerment are some of the programmes, the State has evolved and also provided reservation in admission into educational institution, or in case of other economic benefits under Articles 15(4) and 46 or in appointment to an office or a post under the State under Article 16(4). Therefore, when a member is transplanted into the Dalits, Tribes and OBCs he/she must of necessity also undergo same handicaps, be subject to the same disabilities, disadvantages, indignities or sufferings so as to entitle the candidate to avail the facility of reservation. A candidate who had the advantageous start in life being born in forward caste and had march of advantageous life but is transplanted in Backward Caste by adoption or marriage or conversion, does not become eligible to the benefit of reservation either under Article 15(4) status of Scheduled Caste etc., by voluntary mobility into these categories would play fraud on the Constitution, and would frustrate the benign constitutional policy under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution".
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 72 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

The State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors vs A. Gurusamy on 17 February, 1997

9. Yet again in State of Tamil Nadu v. A. Gurusamy, , it is inter alia that in a case of this nature, having regard to the provisions of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India, even a civil suit will not be maintainable to declare a community as belonging to Scheduled Caste and even in a situation like this the principles of estoppel will have no application.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 43 - Full Document
1   2 Next