PUDUCHERRY S.C. PEOPLE WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY
LAWS(SC)-2014-8-69
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
August 07,2014
PUDUCHERRY S.C. PEOPLE WELFARE ASSOCIATION
Appellant
VERSUS
Chief Secretary To Govt., Union Territory Of Pondicherry
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
B S N JOSHI AND SONS LTD VS. AJOY MEHTA [REFERRED TO]STATE OF UTTARANCHAL VS. SANDEEP KUMAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
DIPAK KUMAR JAGUBHAI PATEL VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-11-228] [REFERRED TO]MR. ABHINAV DIPAKBHAI PATEL VS. DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT [LAWS(BOM)-2017-4-137] [REFERRED TO]
P.UDHAYANILAVAN VS. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2019-10-271] [REFERRED TO]
S NANDHIVARMAN VS. J KUMARAN [LAWS(MAD)-2015-4-138] [REFERRED TO]
THE PONDICHERRY SCHEDULED CASTE PEOPLES WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-8-28] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR VS. RAJA [LAWS(KER)-2023-3-167] [REFERRED TO]
THE PONDICHERRY SCHEDULED CASTE PEOPLES WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-66] [REFERRED TO]
TANISHA SURENDRA PATEL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2019-9-232] [REFERRED TO]
P AFSAANA VS. MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-419] [REFERRED TO]
THE PONDICHERRY SCHEDULED CASTE PEOPLES WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-6-81] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The appellant is an association representing the Scheduled Caste residents who have permanent residence/place of abode in Puducherry. The association filed two Writ Petitions before the High Court challenging the two Government Orders being G.O.Ms.No.11/2005/Wel(SCW II) [for short, 'G.O.M. 11/2005'] and G.O.Ms.No.12/2005/Wel(SCW II) [for short, 'G.O.M. 12/2005'] both dated 05.08.2005. G.O.M. 11/2005 relates to reservation benefits in promotion and employment to Group C & D posts and the other G.O.M. 12/2005 relates to reservation benefits in professional courses.
(2.)The High Court was not persuaded by the arguments of the writ petitioner and dismissed the two Writ Petitions by a common order dated 21.07.2008.
(3.)The present Civil Appeals, by special leave, arise from the above common judgment.
(2.)The High Court was not persuaded by the arguments of the writ petitioner and dismissed the two Writ Petitions by a common order dated 21.07.2008.
(3.)The present Civil Appeals, by special leave, arise from the above common judgment.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.