Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)Action Committee On Issue Of Caste ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 18 July, 1994
case titled as Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of
Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Union of India and Anr, (1994)5 SCC
244, did hold an occasion, to make interpretation(s) of
paragraph No. 13 and 19, as occurred in the 22 nd Report, as,
made by the Commissioner for Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes to the Government of India, paragraphs 13
and 19, as become borne in the afore report, stand extracted
hereinafter:-
Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao vs Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College And Ors on 2 May, 1990
8. Be that as it may, both in Marri Chandra Shekhar
Rao's case (supra), and, in Action Committee's case
(supra) the issue of voluntarily and involuntarily migration, of,
a person to a migratee State, and, as becomes occasioned
upon her marriage, were never encompassed within the
realm of the factual foundation(s) cast thereins, nor obviously
any pointed, and, stark declaration qua the afore hence
emerged.
The Army Act, 1950
Article 340 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bir Singh vs Delhi Jal Board . on 30 August, 2018
Shekhar Rao vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College and
others, reported in 1990(3) SCC 130, and, also upon its
placing reliance, upon, a verdict made in case titled as Action
Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the State of Maharashtra
and Anr. vs. Union of India and others, reported in
1994(5)SCC 244, besides upon its placing reliance, upon, a
verdict of the Hon'ble Apex Court, rendered in a case titled, as
Bir Singh vs. Delhi Jal Board and others, reported in
2018(1) SCC 312, rather thereins i.e. Pankaj Kumar's case
(supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court in relevant para 41 thereof,
para whereof stands extracted hereinafter, has made the
following expostulations:-
Pankaj Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 August, 2021
9. Moreover, even in Pankaj Kumar's case (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court neither came to be seized with the legality
of a caste certificate, of a spouse, as arose from her marriage,
in the migratee State, where also her husband belonged to a
similar validly notified caste, nor hence any clinching verdict
became pronounced thereons hence by the Hon'ble Apex
Court.
Naveen Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 16 December, 2020
Through, the extant petition, the verdict made by
this Court on 22.02.2021, upon, Civil Writ Petition No. 5951 of
2020, titled as Naveen Kumari vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and others, is attempted to be reviewed.
Ranjana Kumari vs The State Of Uttarakhand on 1 November, 2018
verdicts, of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the latter became seized
with foundational facts hence appertaining to the legality of
Schedule Castes certificate(s), as, held by any married spouse
in both the State(s) of her origin, and, in the migratee State,
conspicuously, when even in a migratee State a similar
nomenclatured caste became validly notified. Therefore, the
invalidation by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the caste certificate
of the aspirant concerned, in its verdict, drawn in Ranjana
Kumari's case (supra), does appear, to be beyond the ambit of
the ratio decidendi, as propounded in the verdicts (surpa),
whereons reliance has been placed by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
inasmuch, as, in both the verdicts (supra) as became relied by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, there were neither any foundational
facts, vis-a-vis, the fact as repelled by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
in the verdict rendered, in Ranjana Kumari's case (supra), nor
any firm ratio decidendi qua therewith became expostulated,
in the, verdicts (supra), as became relied upon.
1