Fatma Bai Vs. D.R. Umrigar

.....scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law declared by supreme court under article 141 of the constitution of india. said observations/directions are issued in exercise of powers under article 142 of the constitution and also have no application to the cases relating to appointments and are restricted to the cases relating to admissions. the protection, if any, to be granted in the fact and circumstances of case would depend upon exercise of discretion by supreme court under article 142 of the constitution. said powers under article 142 of constitution is not available to the high court. hence no protection can be granted by high court even in cases relating to admissions. macleod, j.1. the applicant presented this application to the prothonotary under order xxxiii of the civil procedure code for leave to sue as a pauper. under rule 2 her application was bound to contain all the particulars required in regard to plaints in suits, and was therefore bound to show a cause of action. under rule 5, the court shall reject an application for permission to sue as a pauper inter alia when the applicant is not a pauper or when his allegations do not show a cause of action.i l r (1886) 10 bom. 207i l r (1886) 10 bom. 207