You may GO thru;
Supreme Court of India
Mrs. Valsamma Paul vs Cochin University And Others on 4 January, 1996
Equivalent citations: AIR 1996 SC 1011, 1996 (1) CTC 301, (1996) 3 GLR 92, JT 1996 (1) SC 57, 1996 (1) KLT 169 SC, 1996 LablC 919, 1996 (1) SCALE 85, (1996) 3 SCC 545, 1996 1 SCR 128, 1996 (1) UJ 626 SC
Bench: K Ramaswamy, B Hansaria
Allahabad High Court
Surendra Kumar Kanwat vs Union Of India Thru. Sec. And 5 ... on 26 October, 2015
Bench: Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, Chief Justice, Yashwant Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Chief Justice's Court AFR
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 689 of 2015
Basically, the case of the appellant is that in exercise of its discretionary power, the State has granted the benefit of reservation to persons who have migrated from other States to the State of Uttar Pradesh as Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for the purpose of education and employment even though the community in question is not included in the Presidential Order designating Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Delhi High Court
Dsssb vs Vikas Kumar on 27 November, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: August 12, 2013
Judgment Delivered on: November 27, 2013
+ WP (C) 3049/2012
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurminder Kaur vs Director Education Recruitment ... on 31 March, 2017
CWP No. 6835 of 2016 and other connected matters -1-
217+228+230 (13 cases)
in true sense of shifting from one area to another in search of jobs. On marriage, they have obtained a domicile in the State of Punjab and have become residents thereto. If by birth they are disadvantaged and after marriage their caste which is acquired by birth continues to be recognized as a disadvantage caste/tribe/class, they would require the same protection as has been given to them by the Constitution of India under … at their native place as has been held in the judgment rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Sahendra Bai (supra). This is situation as envisaged by the Supreme Court in the case of Marri Chandra Shekar Rao (supra) where the transfer is involuntary and in that perspective, the policy 12 of 13 CWP No. 6835 of 2016 and other connected matters -13- dated 17.01.1996 would certainly require reconsideration.
18. Therefore the above noted writ petitions are being disposed of by giving a direction to the State to reconsider the policy dated 17.01.1996 in the light of the observations made herein above and para 21 of the judgment rendered in Marri Chandra Shekar Rao's case, where the transfer from one State to the other is involuntary. Let a decision be taken in this regard expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The interim protection granted is extended till then.
Supreme Court of India
Ranjana Kumari vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors on 23 September, 2013
Author: …………………………..J.
Bench: G.S. Singhvi, V. Gopala Gowda
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.8225 of 2013
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.33724 of 2011)
15. The question arising in this appeal is whether a person like the appellant, who is a Scheduled Caste in the State where she was born will not be entitled to the benefit of reservation after marriage in the State where her husband is living despite the fact that the husband also belongs to Scheduled Caste and the particular Caste falls in the same reserved category in the State of migration and that she is a permanent resident of that State.
16. Since the other related matter has been referred to a larger Bench, we think that it would be just and proper to refer this matter also to the larger Bench. Ordered accordingly.
17. The Registry is directed to place the papers before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for consideration and appropriate order.
Supreme Court of India
S. Pushpa And Others vs Sivachanmugavelu And Others on 11 February, 2005
Author: G P Mathur
Bench: Cji, K.G. Balakrishnan, G. P. Mathur
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6-7 of 1998
Recent judgment of Apex Court;
Supreme Court of India
Sunita Singh vs State Of U.P . on 19 January, 2018
Author: M M Shantanagoudar
1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO._487 OF 2018
(Arising from SLP(C) No.7181 of 2016)
And;
Bombay High Court
Rajendra Shrivastava vs The State Of Maharashtra on 22 January, 2010
Bench: B.H. Marlapalle, A.S. Oka, R.Y. Ganoo
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2347 OF 2009
And;
Bombay High Court
Mrs. Anuradha Sudhakar Katkar vs Divisional Caste Scrutiny ... on 3 October, 2017
Bench: B.R. Gavai
40-WP-9528-17+.doc
Sharayu.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 9528 OF 2017
And;
Supreme Court of India
Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 18 January, 2012
Bench: Aftab Alam, Ranjana Prakash Desai
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 654 OF 2012
(Arising out of S.L.P (CIVIL) NO.4282 of 2010)
And;
Andhra High Court
Sabbella Siri Manjoosha Reddy vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. ... on 2 August, 2016
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONBLE SMT JUSTICE ANIS
WRIT PETITION No. 24880 of 2016
02-08-2016
And;
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Bhagwati Devi vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 2 February, 2009
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.632/2009
Smt. Bhagwati Devi
Vs.
The State of Rajasthan and Others
Date of Order :: 02.02.2009
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR
And;
Supreme Court of India
Ashoka Kumar Thakur vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 April, 2008
Writ Petition (civil) 265 of 2006
And discuss your matter with your LOCAL counsel per facts of your matter
