REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MAYA DEVI DAGALA Appellant

V/S

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MADHUKAR DEKATE V. DEAN OF THE MEDICAL COLLEGE,NAGPUR [REFERRED TO]
DINA V. NARAYAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SONABAI V. LAKSHMIBAI [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA BHISHIKAR V. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE,1985 WRIT PETN. NO. 95 OF 1985 [REFERRED TO]
PRABODH PARHATE V. STATE OF MADH. PRA. [REFERRED TO]
SUNIT NANA UMREDKAR V. DR. V. G. RANADE,1980 WRIT PETN NO. 2404 OF 1980 [REFERRED TO]
MAKTUL VS. MANBHARI [REFERRED TO]
B BASAVALIGAPPA VS. D MUNICHINNAPPA [REFERRED TO]
BHAIYA LAL VS. HARIKISHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PARSRAM VS. SHIVCHAND [REFERRED TO]
BHAIYA RAM MUNDA VS. ANIRUDH PATAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. ABHAY [REFERRED TO]
SRISHKUMARCHOUDHURY VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [REFERRED TO]
PALGHAT JILLA THANDAN SAMUDHAYA SAMRAKSHNA SAMITHI VS. STATE OF KERALA [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]
NITYANANDSHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
VINAY PRAKASH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MILIND [REFERRED TO]
K ADIKANDA PATRA VS. GANDUA [REFERRED TO]
ABHAY VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner has described herself as Maya Devi Dagala wife of Topan Ram Dagala. With this description, it is alleged, that the petitioner belongs to the caste and also claims that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. Accordingly, she applied for obtaining a certificate to that effect, vide application Annexure-1, but then, certificate Annexure-5 has been issued certifying her to be belonging to Scheduled Caste.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that according to the Annexure-6, the caste is included in the Scheduled castes at item No. 57, while was included in Scheduled Tribes, which was subsequently de-notified in the year 1964, and then it was included in the list of 'Backward Castes'. It is contended that the term has been spelt in various categories in different spelling and thus, according to the learned counsel, it stands included in every category, being Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Castes, such state of affairs is arbitrary, and since the petitioner claims to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe, she should have been issued certificate of Scheduled Tribe.

Click here to view full judgment.

MAYA DEVI DAGALA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address