Está en la página 1de 7

A Project

Of
Compensatory Discrimination
On
Compensatory Discrimination Policies for Scheduled Caste with
respect to employment under the Indian Constitution: an analysis
Submitted
to:

(Faculty-Constitutional Law)

Submitted
by:

B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)

Semester VII, Roll No19

Submitted on:

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,


RAIPUR

DECLARATION
i
I hereby declare that the project work entitled “Compensatory Discrimination Policies for
Scheduled Caste with respect to employment under the Indian Constitution: an analysis”
submitted to HNLU, Raipur, is record of an original work done by me under the able guidance
of Mrs. Kaumudhi Challa, Faculty (Constitutional Law), HNLU, Raipur.

Anubhuti Jain

Roll No. 19

SEM-VII

ii
CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Ms. Anubhuti Jain, Semester VII, has successfully completed the
project work titled “Compensatory Discrimination Policies for Scheduled Caste with respect
to employment under the Indian Constitution: an analysis” in fulfillment of requirement as
prescribed by Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur.

This project is the record of authentic work carried out in Semester VII, academic year
2016- 2017.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

With a deep sense of gratitude, I acknowledge the help of all those people who have made
the completion of this project possible. I would like to thank my teacher Mrs. Kaumudhi
Challa for her help and guidance and also for putting her faith on me by giving me such a
topic to work on. Mam, thanks for the opportunity which helped me grow.

My gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the infrastructure in
the form of our library and IT Lab that was a source of great help for the completion of this
project.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my family and all my friends who helped me do this
project by sharing their ideas when we discussed together.

iv
TABLE OF CASES

State of Kerala V. N.M. Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490.

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of lndia, AIR 1978 SC 597.

Baker v. Carr 369 U.S. 186 (1962)

Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964).

M. R. Balaji v. State of Mysore, A.T.R. 1963 S.C. 649.

Devadasan v. Union of lndia, [1964] 4 S.C.R. 680.

State of Kera1a v. N.M. Thomas, AIR 1976 SC 490.

Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp 3 SCC 215.

Jagdish Saran v. Union of India, 1980 AIR 820

Dr. Pradeep Jain and Others v. Union of India and Others. (1984) 3 SCC 654

Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.

C A Rajendran v UOI AIR 1968 SC 507.

Arati Ray Choudhury v. Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 532.

P.G. Institute of Medical Education & Research v. Faculty Ass., AIR 1998 SC at 1780.

Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmachari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 298:
(1981) 1 SCC 246.

Mohan Kumar Singhania v Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1, 26.

Minerva Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.

v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 & And
 A.I.R. All India Reporter
 AC Law Reports, Appeal Cases
 Anr. Another
 Art. Article
 Assn. Association
 ed. Edition
 Leg. Legislative
 Hon’ble Honourable
 Id. Ibid.
 Ors. Others
 pg. Page
 Para Paragraph
 QB Law Reports, Queen’s Bench
 S.C. Supreme Court
 S.C.C. Supreme Court Cases
 U.K. United Kingdom
 U.O.I. Union of India
 U.S. United States
 vs. Versus
 vol. Volume

vi
CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………1

OBJECTIVES………………………………………………………………………...2

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY……………………………………………………2

SCHEDULED CASTE……………………………………………………………….3

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION…………………………………………………7

JUDICIAL DECISIONS…………………………………………………………….15

EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY………………………………………………….17

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………….27

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………….28

También podría gustarte