Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.31 seconds)Article 342 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College And Ors on 2 May, 1990
"26. Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) was followed by
another Constitution Bench of this Court in Action Committee
(supra) (Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra and another Vs. Union of India and another - 1994
(5) SCC 244). After referring to Articles 14, 15(1), 15(4), 16(4)
and 19 and Part XVI of the Constitution of India and the
decisions governing the field and also Articles 341 and 342, it
was held as under:
S. Pushpa And Others vs Sivachanmugavelu And Others on 11 February, 2005
13. That apart, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel
for the petitioner in 2005 (3) SCC 1 (S.Pushpa Vs. Sivachanmugavelu), the
Supreme Court considered the issue of conferring reservation benefits to
the Scheduled Caste candidate who has migrated to Puducherry and
hence, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a person can
claim the Scheduled Caste status of his mother or father.
Bir Singh vs Delhi Jal Board . on 30 August, 2018
In the above context, it is appropriate to extract the recent judgment
of the Supreme Court consisting of five Honourable Judges (Constitution Bench),
reported in CDJ 2018 SC 896 (Bir Singh Vs. Delhi Jal Board and others) (cited
supra), wherein it is held by the Apex Court as follows:
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Action Committee On Issue Of Caste ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 July, 1994
"26. Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao (supra) was followed by
another Constitution Bench of this Court in Action Committee
(supra) (Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra and another Vs. Union of India and another - 1994
(5) SCC 244). After referring to Articles 14, 15(1), 15(4), 16(4)
and 19 and Part XVI of the Constitution of India and the
decisions governing the field and also Articles 341 and 342, it
was held as under:
Punit Rai vs Dinesh Chaudhary on 19 August, 2003
16. Further, in the decision reported in 2003 (8) SCC 204 (Punit Rai Vs.
Dinesh Chaudhary), the Supreme Court observed as follows:
Sri Dwarka Nath Tewari & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 October, 1958
"42. The said circular letter has not been
issued by the State in exercise of its power under
Article 162 of the Constitution of India. It is not stated
therein that the decision has been taken by the
Cabinet or any authority authorized in this behalf in
terms of Article 166(3) of the Constitution of India. It is
trite that a circular letter being an administrative
instruction is not a law within the meaning of Article 13
of the Constitution of India. (See Dwarka Nath Tewari
and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others AIR 1959
SC 249)."