SAPNESWAR Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Parija, learned senior advocate, Advocate General resumes his argument. He refers to Dayaram V. Sudhir Batham, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 333, paragraph 9, for the questions considered therein. The first question was answered by the paragraphs, of which he refers to paragraphs 10, 17, 18 and 22. The second question was answered by, inter alia, paragraph 27. On query from Court he submits, he refers to the second question and its answer given in the judgment for purpose of continuity.

(2.) He then refers to paragraphs 33, 35 and 37 to submit, by Dayaram (supra) the Supreme Court did not touch its earlier judgment in Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional Commissioner, (1994) 6 SCC 241.

(3.) On Kumari Madhuri Patil (supra) Mr. Parija submits, in paragraph 14 the Supreme Court issued a mandamus on every State concerned to endeavour to give effect to the procedure given by the judgment and see that the constitutional objectives intended for the benefit and advancement of genuine Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or backward classes, as the case may be, are not defeated by unscrupulous persons. The several notifications, disclosed in the counter, were issued in exercise of power under article 162 in the Constitution. He submits, the rules of 1980 were also made in exercise of said power.