Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.18 seconds)

Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner on 2 September, 1994

In the said decision of the Supreme Court, it is clearly stated that in case of migration also, the Vigilance Officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. In the above judgment, the Supreme Court has not stated that such enquiry should be conducted only by the officer from the place of origin. However, in the case on hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents contended that as per the said G.O.(Ms).No.61, the petitioner has to approach the concerned RDO of the petitioner's native and origin. But we are of the opinion that since the Community Certificate was issued to the petitioner by the second respondent-RDO, Chengalpet, the said G.O. cannot be an impediment for the second respondent http://www.judis.nic.in 7 to conduct enquiry with regard to the issuance of Community Certificate to the petitioner's son. Therefore, considering the entire gamut of the case as well as the said G.O., this Court is constrained to pass the following order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 761 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1