REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Vijaylakshmi Appellant

V/S

STATE OF H.P. Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

K.C. VASANTH KUMAR V. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
N E HORO VS. JAHANARA JAIPAL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
INDRA SAWHNEY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ACTION COMMITTEE ON ISSUE OF CASTE CERTIFICATE TO SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI MADHURI PATIL VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT [REFERRED TO]
MURLIDHAR DAYANDEO KESEKAR VS. VISHWANATH PANDU BARDE [REFERRED TO]
R CHANDEVARAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
NITYANANDSHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
HEIKHAM SURCHANDRA SINGH VS. REPRESENTATIVE OF LOIS KAKCHING MANIPUR A SCHEDULED CASTE UPLIFT BODY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TRIPURA VS. NAMITA MAJUMDAR [BARMAN] [REFERRED TO]
U P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ALLAHABAD VS. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. CHANDRAMOHANAN [REFERRED TO]
SOBHA HYMAVATHI DEVI VS. SETTI GANGADHARA SWAMY [REFERRED TO]
S PUSHPA VS. SIVACHANMUGAVELU [REFERRED TO]
MEERA KANWARIA VS. SUNITA [REFERRED TO]
ANJAN KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M NAGARAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
ASHOKA KUMAR THAKUR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA VS. DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD [REFERRED TO]
MANJU VS. STATE OF H P [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS. VS. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI AND ORS. VS. JAGDISH BALARAM BAHIRA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is not in dispute that either by birth or upbringing, petitioner does not belong to a Schedule Tribe category. She is a Brahmin, born in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Also, her upbringing is not in a socially or culturally backward set up. It is also not in dispute that Scheduled Tribe certificate was obtained by her solely on the strength of her having married a person who belonged to a Scheduled Tribe category.

(2.) In the present petition, the sole question, which arises for consideration, is as to whether a lady, who otherwise does not belong to a Scheduled Tribe, on account of her marriage to a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, so notified within the State of Himachal Pradesh, acquires the status of that of her husband, i.e. Scheduled Tribe, for the purpose of claiming benefits as envisaged under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India or not.

(3.) While the issue is no longer res-integra, for it stands settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its several decisions, but however, since repeatedly it keeps on cropping, not only with regard to ladies who otherwise do not belong to a Scheduled Tribe but marry a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, but also with regard to ladies, who do not belong to a Scheduled Caste but marry a person belong to a Scheduled Caste, we endeavour to reiterate the law, as stands laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Click here to view full judgment.

VIJAYLAKSHMI Vs. STATE OF H.P.

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address