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

2006 Supreme(Bom) 673

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, KSHITIJ R.VYAS
ASHWINI ANIL CHAVAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – Respondent


ORAL JUDGMENT

DR. D.V. CHANDRACHUD, J.: - Rule, by consent of Counsel returnable forthwith. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents waives service. By consent of Counsel and at the request of Counsel taken up for hearing.

2. A caste certificate was issued to the petitioner on 25th March, 2003 certifying that she belongs to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The Second Respondent was moved for verification. The Police Inspector attached to the Vigilance Cell submitted a report dated 16th April, 2005. The claim of the petitioner to belong to the Thakur Scheduled Tribe came to be rejected by the Scrutiny Committee by its order dated 15th October, 2005 which is impugned in these proceedings. The Scrutiny Committee has adverted to the fact that the Research Officer attached to the Vigilance Cell has formed an opinion that the traits and characteristics of the petitioner did not match with the Thakur Scheduled Tribe. The claim of the petitioner was consequently rejected on the ground that the affinity test was not fulfilled.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that neither the report of the Research Officer, nor for that matter the impugned order of the Scrutiny Commi





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