Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

RAMAVATAR versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Decided
7 April 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 683 · 1997 INSC 381

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 683, margin E

The appellant claims for promotion as Engineer-in-Chief on the basis of a Scheduled Tribe Status. In the judgment in Major Yogendra Narain Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., the right of the person has been determined. In this case, the question arises is: whether the appellant really belongs to Scheduled Tribe? With a view to find the genuineness of the status as Scheduled Tribes, we had directed the petitioner to file genealogy table of his family history. It is now admitted in his affidavit that the family of the appellant hails from Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh. He claims that his forefathers had migrated to Bihar and that the appellant had _done his education there and had obtained the certificate also from the District Magistrate, Patna. Admittedly, none of his forefathers had been granted any such certificate. The family history, as stated in the affidavit indicates as under: A "GENEOLOGY Late Chilbili Sah Late Chintaman Sah

pp. 683–684, margin E

Late Hira Sah Late Tulsi Sah Late J anki Sah Late Mahabir Sah Ram Avatar Kaushalya Laxmi Narayan (Son) (Widow) (Son)

p. 684

(Daughter)

p. 684

Married to Bagaha Married with

p. 684

Married with late District Bettiah, Old Y ashoda Devi

p. 684

Ganga Pd., Patna District Motihari D Ara District Old Shahabad District.

p. 684

Rashmi Bala Ushmi Bala Abhijit Daughter Daughter Son

p. 684

..... All are married ..... Shashi Nishi Bala Rishi Pa wan Suman Sandhya Pragati Raman Bala Bala Kumar Kumar Gond Kumar

p. 684

Kr., District now

p. 684

A reading of this family history indicates that his claim as Scheduled Tribe is not only highly doubtful but beyond comprehension to believe that he is eligible for the same. Under the circumstances, we do not find any substance to interfere with the order of the High Court. However, it would be open for the appellant to be entitled to compete as a general candidate.

p. 685

The appeals are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs. T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.

p. 685, margin B