Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 51 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Karnataka & Ors vs K. Govindappa & Anr on 20 November, 2008

Mahesh Kumar Singh vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 3 July, 2015

14. Being bound by the judgment of Apex Court in State of Karnataka & others v. K. Govindappa & another (supra), we are of the view that the single post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer (History)) could not have been kept reserved for SC category and the applicant could not have been nixed consideration for appointment to the same on the ground that he did not belong to reserved category.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Arun Kumar vs Dr.G.Radhakrishna Pillai on 5 October, 2021

30. We also find that in the light of the clear statutory provisions obtaining under the amended Kerala University Act read with Rules 14 to 17A of the KS&SSR where the principles of reservation are to be applied to any "service, class or category" and not to 'posts', the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. Chakradar Paswan (Supra), Govindappa (Supra), R.R. Inamdar (Supra) and the decisions of the Allahabad and Madras High Courts in Vivekanand Tiwari (Supra) and Balamurugan (Supra) have to be seen as rendered in the context of the statutory provisions that obtained in those cases. We do not see those decisions as laying down a general rule, divorced of statutory context, that teaching posts in different subjects or disciplines cannot be included in a single cadre for the purposes of applying the principles of communal reservation.
Kerala High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - A K Nambiar - Full Document

Connected Miscellaneous Petitions vs ) The Madurai Kamaraj University on 29 November, 2013

26. From the reading of the above chapter of the University statutes, it could be seen that all appointments shall be done by the committee nominated by the Vice Chancellor and all the teachers of the institute are not transferable to University departments and further the above chapter also makes it clear that if any vacancy is arisen in the department of university, if any other teacher from the institute wants to apply to the said post he/she has to apply separately and appear before the appropriate selection committee, therefore, when the above provision makes the issue very clear that no teacher working in one discipline is transferable to another discipline in the university department, the question of treating all the departments into one single unit, for the purpose of recruitment by applying the rule of reservation is not permissible. Inasmuch as when the Act itself has made various departments working under the 2nd respondent as a separate department all the 18 departments cannot be treated as a single unit, but that does not mean that the University can escape from applying the rule of reservation as and when any selection is made to fill up the vacancies arising in the 2nd respondent/DDE. In fact, when the recruitment took place in the 2nd respondent/DDE to fill up the vacancies in the department of education in the year 2008 by notification dated 10.08.2008, the recruitments were made only subject wise not as contended by the petitioners, therefore, in the present recruitment to the posts of Assistant Professor for all the 18 departments advertised through the present impugned advertisement, all the appointees to the posts of Assistant Professor are going to be the first appointees in the respective departments. As a matter of fact, after 2008, the present recruitment is only the second recruitment undertaken by the University in DDE by making the cadre strength in 2010, moreover, the affidavit filed by the respondents clearly shows that the cadre strength of the Assistant Professors in each one of the 15 disciplines is only one and the cadre strength in the remaining three disciplines is English-2, Management Studies-4 and Computer Science-2, therefore, wherever more than one post is going to be filled in, the reservation roster is going to be followed. On the other hand, wherever there is only one post, it is going to be filled in as per the ratio laid down in the case of State of Karnataka and others vs. K.Govindappa and another reported in (2009) 1 SCC 01, wherein the Apex Court held that reservation cannot be applied to a single isolated post as it would amount to 100% reservation. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the relevant paragraphs of the above said judgment.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - T Raja - Full Document

Nazifa Sahani Barbhuiya vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 8 September, 2022

In that view of the matter the present facts and law squarely covers by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in State of Karnataka and others Vs. K.Govindappa and another reported in (2009) 1 SCC 1. Accordingly Page No.# 9/10 this Court is having no other option but to hold that the post in question is a single post. Accordingly it is declared as the Single post, the advertisement was issued without reservation, the post is not interchangeable and therefore the same is a Single post.
Gauhati High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Man Mohan And Ors. And 5 Other Connected ... vs State And Ors. on 7 November, 2017

10. Thus from perusal of the clauses of the advertisement as well as various government orders quoted supra and in particular the Government Order No.1034-Edu of 2013 dated 26.12.2013, it is evident that the State Government was conscious of the fact that even in respect of the village which is predominantly inhabited by SC/ST population, 100 per cent reservation to particular category cannot be provided and therefore, the Government order dated 26.12.2013 was issued by which it was made clear that all candidates holding valid PRC for a particular village would be considered eligible for consideration. It is pertinent to note that 100 per cent reservation in favour of particular class or community is violative of the constitutional mandate contained in Article 16(1) of the Constitution of SWP No.126/2014, MP No.971/2014, MP No.1/2017, MP No.154/2017 c/w SWP No.1272/2016, MP No.01/2016 SWP No.1024/2014, MP No.1353/2017 SWP No.124/2014, MP Nos.941/2015, 940/2015, 969/2014, 152/2014, 4792/2014 SWP No.428/2014, MP Nos.2/2017, 1/2017, 603/2014, 3/2017 SWP 445/2014, MP Nos.1/2017 & 636/2014 Page 6 of 9 India. See: State of Karnataka and Ors. V. K. Govindappa and anr., 2008 (16) SCR 457; Puneet Gulati and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors,. 2011 AIR (SCW) 507.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Aradhe - Full Document

J.S.Yadav vs State Of U.P & Anr on 18 April, 2011

10. The aforesaid submission seems to be very attractive but has no substance for the reason that a cadre generally denotes a strength 10 of a service or a part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. It also includes sanctioned strength with reference to grades in a particular service. Cadre may also include temporary, supernumerary and shadow posts created in different grades. The expression "cadre", "posts" and "service" cannot be equated with each other. (See: Union of India v. Pushpa Rani & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 242; and State of Karnataka & Ors. v. K. Govindappa & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 618). There is no prohibition in law to have two or more separate grades in the same cadre based on an intelligent differential. Admittedly, the post of District Judge and Additional District Judge in the State of U.P. is neither inter-changeable nor inter-transferable. The aforesaid Rules merely provide for an integrated cadre for the aforesaid posts. Thus, the submission is liable to be rejected being preposterous.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 530 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Poonam vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 29 October, 2015

“12. The aforesaid submission seems to be very attractive but has no substance for the reason that a cadre generally denotes a strength of a service or a part of service sanctioned as a separate unit. It also includes sanctioned strength with reference to grades in a particular service. Cadre may also include temporary, supernumerary and shadow posts created in different grades. The expressions “cadre”, “posts” and “service” cannot be equated with each other. (See Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and State of Karnataka v. K. Govindappa[26].) There is no prohibition in law to have two or more separate grades in the same cadre based on an intelligent differential. Admittedly, the post of District Judge and Additional District Judge in the State of U.P. is neither interchangeable nor intertransferable. The aforesaid Rules merely provide for an integrated cadre for the aforesaid posts. Thus, the submission is liable to be rejected being preposterous.
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 207 - D Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next