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

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

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

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more