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

1996 Supreme(AP) 131

D.REDDAPPA REDDY, LINGARAJA RATH
I. B. Rajendra Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The Director of Tribal Welfare – Respondent


LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of the common judgmentin Writ Petition Nos. 12403 of 1987 and 5614 of 1988 dated 31st July, 1990 which relate to the same set of facts and hence are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 2 ) THE question that falls for consideration in these appeals is whether a person who has been appointed to a job in a public sector undertaking on the basis of the being a scheduled tribe if is lateron found as not having that status because of subsequent decision of the High Court clarifying that the sect to which he belongs is not a scheduled tribe, his caste certificate can be cancelled, without notice to him, and his appointment which he has held for about 10 years can be terminated, though the appellant did not at any time made any misrepresentation of his status. A few facts necessary to consider the question raised are: on 22-11-1976 a certificate was issued by the Head Mistress of S. R. R. Parishad Multipurpose School, Nuzvid, describing the appellant as belonging to manya Kapu Community. Prior to that, on 6-1-1975, the Government had issued Memo No, 2451-F2/73-15 clarifying that manya Kapu is synonymous with konda Kapu and that G











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