SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 256

B.L.HANSARIA, K.RAMASWAMY, S.B.MAJMUDAR
Nityanandsharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

2. Short but an important question of constitutional law of the power of the Court to declare a particular tribe to be Scheduled Tribe under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Order, 1950 as amended by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Orders (Amendment Act), 1976 (for short, the Act ) is the primary question.

3. The appellants, Assistant Teachers in the service of the State of Bihar belonging to Lohar caste, claimed the status as Scheduled Tribe under the Act and the order and sought promotion on that basis in the quota reserved for the Scheduled Tribes. When the request was not acceded to, the appellants had filed CWJC No.10593/92. The High Court by impugned order dated August 12,1993, dismissed the same.

4. Appellants case is founded on two-fold basis, firstly, Lohar community was included in the Schedule under the Act as

 

reflected in the Hindi version of the order and that thereby they are entitled to be recognised as Scheduled Tribes. Secondly, it is contended that when similar claim was relied on by one Shambhu Nath and was rejected by CAT, this Court in Shambhu Nath v. State of Bihar1 had held that Lohar community is a Scheduled Tribe under t

































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top