<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1986 (3) TMI 330 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173869</link>
    <description>Under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules, 1984, the special category for children of political sufferers or freedom fighters was held to require satisfaction of the full definition, not merely proof of a parent&#039;s participation in the freedom movement. The Supreme Court applied a purposive construction and treated the word &quot;and&quot; as cumulative, so clause (a) could not be read separately from the specified suffering requirement in clause (b). Reading participation alone would defeat the object of the reservation. On that interpretation, the special category claim was not established and the certificate for appeal was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2015 18:33:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 330 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173869</link>
      <description>Under Rule 4 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection of Candidates for Admission) Rules, 1984, the special category for children of political sufferers or freedom fighters was held to require satisfaction of the full definition, not merely proof of a parent&#039;s participation in the freedom movement. The Supreme Court applied a purposive construction and treated the word &quot;and&quot; as cumulative, so clause (a) could not be read separately from the specified suffering requirement in clause (b). Reading participation alone would defeat the object of the reservation. On that interpretation, the special category claim was not established and the certificate for appeal was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173869</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>