Caste Certificate - Ancestors are Hindu Pulaya Community - Grand father embraced Christianity - Appellant re embraced Hindu Pulaya Community -Akhila Bharata Ayyappa Seva Sangham granted certificate as Hindu Pulaya Community - applied to the Tahasildar - Tahasildar issued certificate - Basing on the certificate he obtained job - on enquiry order for removal from service - and order for recovery of 15 lakhs - enquiry committee held that though converted to Hinduism - but married to Christian - not professing Hinduism - Challenged - the High Court has accepted the report of the Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") wherein the caste certificate granted in favour of K.P. Manu, the appellant herein, had been cancelled. - Apex court held that the judgment in S. Swvigaradoss (supra), as far as the second principle is concerned, is per incuriam.- As far as the marriage and leading of Hindu life are concerned, we are of the convinced opinion that, in the instant case, it really cannot be allowed to make any difference. The community which is a recognised organisation by the State Government, has granted the certificate in categorical terms in favour of the appellant.It is the community which has the final say as far as acceptance is concerned, for it accepts the person, on reconversion, and takes him within its fold. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that the appellant after reconversion had come within the fold of the community and thereby became a member of the scheduled caste. Had the community expelled him the matter would have been different. The acceptance is in continuum. Ergo, the reasonings ascribed by the Scrutiny Committee which have been concurred with by the High Court are wholly unsustainable. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the High Court, findings of the Scrutiny Committee and the orders passed by the State Government and the second respondent are set aside. The appellant shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all the benefits relating to seniority and his caste, and shall also be paid backwages upto 75% within eight weeks from today. - 2015 S.C.msklawreports

Caste Certificate - Ancestors are Hindu Pulaya Community - Grand father embraced Christianity - Appellant re embraced Hindu Pulaya Community -Akhila Bharata Ayyappa Seva  Sangham granted certificate as Hindu Pulaya Community - applied to the Tahasildar - Tahasildar issued certificate - Basing on the certificate he obtained job - on enquiry order for removal from service - and order for recovery of 15 lakhs - enquiry committee held that though converted to Hinduism - but married to Christian - not professing Hinduism - Challenged -  the High Court has  accepted  the report of the Scrutiny Committee constituted  under  the  Kerala  (Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of  Community  Certificates Act, 1996 (for short "the Act") wherein the  caste  certificate  granted  in favour of K.P. Manu, the appellant herein, had been cancelled. - Apex court held that the judgment in S. Swvigaradoss (supra), as  far  as  the  second  principle  is concerned, is per incuriam.- As far as  the  marriage  and  leading  of Hindu life are concerned, we are of  the  convinced  opinion  that,  in  the
instant case, it really cannot be  allowed  to  make  any  difference.  
 The community which is a recognised organisation by the  State  Government,  has granted the certificate in categorical terms in  favour  of  the  appellant.It is the community which  has  the  final  say  as  far  as  acceptance  is concerned, for it accepts the person, on reconversion, and takes him  within its fold.   Therefore, we are inclined  to  hold  that  the  appellant  after
reconversion had come within the fold of the community and thereby became  a
member of the scheduled caste.  Had the community expelled  him  the  matter
would have been different.  The  acceptance  is  in  continuum.   Ergo,  the reasonings ascribed by the Scrutiny  Committee  which  have  been  concurred
with by the High Court are wholly unsustainable.  Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of  the High Court, findings of the Scrutiny Committee and the orders passed by  the State Government and the second respondent are  set  aside.   The  appellant
shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all the benefits  relating  to seniority and his caste, and shall also be paid backwages  upto  75%  within eight weeks from today. - 2015 S.C.msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)