ANOOP V.MOHTA, A.A.SAYED
Sanjay Bajirao More – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary – Respondent
ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Heard finally, by consent of the parties.
2 Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have challenged common order dated 28 May 2015 passed by the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee-Respondent No.2, invalidating the caste certificates of the Petitioners as belonging to “Thakur-Scheduled Tribe”, issued by the Competent Authority.
3 The case of the Petitioners is as follows:i) On 5 January 1924, father of Petitioner No. 1 and real uncle of Petitioner No. 2 admitted in the primary school and on 9 December 1925, father of Petitioner No.2 and real uncle of Petitioner No.1 admitted in the primary school, where their social status was described as “Thakur”.
ii) On 6 September 1950, by exercise of powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 342 of the Constitution of India, the President was pleased to initially issue the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950. As far as the then State of Bombay was concerned, the relevant portion is to be found in Part III of the Schedule to the 1950 Order. Entry 21 deals with "Thakur'. Clause 2 of the said Order says that the tribes or tribal communities, or parts of, or groups within tribes or t
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.