Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.53 seconds)Article 342 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Maharashtra vs Milind & Ors on 28 November, 2000
8. Pursuant to the judgment in the case of Milind (supra), the
Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs(Banking
Division), Government of India in consultation with the Ministry
of Welfare vide letter dated 12th March 1987, declared the State
of Karnataka circulars which included the 'Kotegara' caste in
the list of Scheduled Castes in the State of Karnataka to
be non-est........
K. Nirmala vs Canara Bank on 6 November, 2019
13. The decisions of this Court in Bhim Rao Ambedkar
(supra) and in K. Nirmala (supra) exercising equity
jurisdiction stand on a different footing and they can be
distinguished on facts. Those judgments dealt with long
standing appointments, continued over a period of time,
because of which court felt, on equitable considerations, not
to disturb the employment of the appellants therein. The facts
in this case are completely different and the following will
clarify the position.
Article 342A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sunil Kumar Rai vs The State Of Bihar on 21 February, 2022
3. However, the aforesaid notification dated 23.08.2016 was
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) No.
1052 of 2021, titled Sunil Kumar Rai v. State of Bihar,
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 232, wherein the Hon'ble
Apex Court, by judgment dated 21.02.2022, quashed the said
notification and also passed strictures against the Government
of Bihar for attempting to include the Lohara community in the
Scheduled Tribe list without authority of law.
Vinay Prakash & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 17 February, 1997
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents states
that the Hon'ble Apex Court while quashing the notification
dated 23.08.2016 of the Bihar Government had specifically
observed at Para 18 of the said judgment, while referring to the
earlier decision in Vinay Prakash vs State of Bihar, reported
in (1997) 3 SCC 406, which was a previous case regarding
inclusion of 'Lohar' community in the 'ST' category, held that
there cannot be prospective effect of judgment in such cases as
the persons were not entitled to status of 'ST' from the
beginning, and hence, the applicant cannot be granted benefit
of status of 'ST' to which she was never entitled to. He adds that
she could not be allowed to continue to enjoy the benefit of ST
2026.01.14
ANJALI 15:41:06
+05'30'
12
O.A. No. 2290/2024
category and deny opportunity to a real ST candidate to occupy
the said post. Hence her termination is absolutely correct in
law.
Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar Vichar Manch Bihar ... vs The State Of Bihar on 11 May, 2022
12. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the
opinion that after the decision of this Court in the case of
Bhim Rao Ambedkar (supra), the issue of the appellant
claiming reservation as Scheduled Caste candidate does not
subsist. As indicated earlier, it is not even the argument of the
respondent that the said judgment will not apply.
Union Of India vs Rohit Nandan on 13 October, 2023
15. We find that both the applicant and the respondents are
relying upon the Rohit Nandan's case (supra) to buttress their
own individual point of view.
1