Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)
Sri D Anappa vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., on 13 June, 2018 cites

Bank Of India & Anr vs Avinash D. Mandivikar & Ors on 14 September, 2005

14. Be that as it may, when the caste certificate was issued to the petitioner by the Tahsildar who is an officer under the State Government and in that circumstance, as noticed above, it had been relied on by the Central Government undertaking, even if the Government Order dated 11.03.2002 is accepted as not binding in its strict sense as a direction issued to an authority who is not subordinate or is not under the control of the State Government, the nature of the consideration made in the Order explaining the circumstance under which the caste certificates were issued earlier and the extent to which the benefit of reservation is nullified subsequently, while saving only the appointment is a relevant material for the decision to be taken with regard to the continuation of the employment by denuding the status of Schedule Tribe when it is not a case of misrepresentation or playing fraud to obtain the caste certificate. Such protection of saving the appointment in any event has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the earliest case relating to Milind (supra), which has been reiterated in the case of Punjab National Bank (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 204 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Kavita Solunke vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 9 August, 2012

6. It is evident that there is a plethora of precedents on this aspect of the law, and perhaps for this reason Counsel for the parties were remiss in drawing our attention in the present proceedings to the detailed judgment 12 in Kavita Solunke v. State of Maharashtra (2012) 8 SCC 430, in which one of us, Thakur J, had analysed as many as eleven precedents including those discussed above. After reviewing all the judgments it was held, in the facts and circumstances of that case, that since that party had not intentionally or with dishonest intent fabricated particulars of a scheduled tribe with a view to obtain an undeserved benefit in the matter of appointment, she was entitled to protection against ouster from service, but no other benefit.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 136 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Raju Ramsing Vasave vs Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors on 29 August, 2008

7. X X X X X 7.1. X X X X X 7.2. X X X X X 7.3. This benefit accrues from the decision of this Court inter alia in Raju Ramsing Vasave v. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar (2008) 9 SCC 54 which was rendered under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Realising the likely confusion in the minds of even honest persons the Resolutions/Legislation passed by the State Governments should spare some succour to this section of persons. This can be best illustrated by the fact that it was in Milind that the Constitution Bench clarified that 'Koshtis' or 'Halba-Koshtis' were not entitled to claim benefits as Scheduled Tribes and it was the 'Halbas' alone who were so entitled. A perusal of 13 the judgment in Vilas by Sirpurkar J, as well as Solunke makes it clear that this protection is available by virtue of the decisions of this Court, it is not exclusively or necessarily predicated on any Resolution or Legislation of the State Legislature.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 260 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1