Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 193 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 June, 2016

Rajeev Kumar vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 12 March, 2024

3.1 It is stated by the applicant that SDE RRs 2002 require a JTO to have rendered not less than 3 years of regular service in the grade on 1st July of the year of LDCE. Note 2 in column 12 of these RRs provides Page 2 of 8 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00412 of 2022 Rajeev Kumar Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. that promotion of JTOs shall be made on the basis of an All India eligibility list. Note 3 stipulates that 'the crucial date for determining eligibility list shall be 1st of July of year to which vacancies pertain'. Further, note 5 stipulates that 'where juniors who have completed their qualifying eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of requisite qualifying eligibility service by more than one year'. As per the applicant, LDCE 2007, in which he appeared, pertained to the vacancy years 2001-02 to 2005-06. The applicant was short of 3 years' regular service by 28 days as on 01.07.2005 while one junior (Shri Kamlesh), who was recruited in the same year as the applicant, was eligible as he had joined as JTO before 01.07.2002. It is the contention of the applicant that his joining got delayed till 11.07.2002 as the respondents could not send him for training for no fault of his. A clarification was sought by the competent authority from respondent no. 2 whether the applicant was eligible for LDCE 2007 in view of Note 5 in column 12 of SDE RRs 2002. The clarification dated 16.04.2007 stated that the case of applicant be decided as per column 12 and Note thereunder. Following this clarification, the applicant was allowed to appear in LDCE 2007 on 15.07.2007 and was promoted vide order dated 03.11.2008. 3.2 It is further stated by the applicant that following a court case filed by Shri M Devi Dayal before Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal, the respondents have issued a clarification dated 30.07.2010 to the effect that Note 5 of column 12 of SDE RRs 2002 shall be applicable for seniority-cum-fitness quota only. It is the applicant's contention that this clarification is impermissible under law and it cannot be issued without amending SDE RRs 2002 and further, in any case, such clarification cannot have retrospective effect.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dayaram Khemkaran Verma S/O Khemkaran ... vs State Of Gujarat & 1....Opponents on 4 August, 2016

29.21 Learned Advocate General placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & others, reported in 2016 SCC Online SC 651,wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently held that the principle laid down in Indra Sawhney is applicable only when the State seek to give preferential treatment in the matter of employment under State to certain classes of citizens identified to be a backward class. But Article 16(4) of the Constitution does not disable the State from providing differential treatment to other classes of citizens under Article 16(1) if they otherwise deserve such treatment. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the claim of reservation of seats for persons with disability under the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. 29.22 All the authorities relied on by the learned Advocate General referred above relate to reservation to backward class under Article 16(4) or reservation relating to disabled persons within the meaning of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. As such, we are of the view that the aforesaid judgments are of no help to the case of the respondents as much as we have held that 10% of the group in Page 98 of 104 HC-NIC Page 98 of 104 Created On Sat Aug 06 03:51:36 IST 2016 C/WPPIL/108/2016 CAV JUDGMENT unreserved category cannot be considered as homogeneous group.
Gujarat High Court Cites 83 - Cited by 2 - R S Reddy - Full Document

Jomy Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 17 March, 2022

22. The aforesaid issue was raised by the learned Amicus Curiae in the context of the plea of the appellant State that the State does not provide for any reservation in promotion for PwD. Thus, a person with disability would be considered for promotion along with other persons working in the feeder cadre. We have no doubt that the mandate of Section 32 of the 1995 Act enjoins the Government to identify posts that can be filled up with persons with disability. Thus, even posts in promotional cadres have to be identified for PwD and such posts have to be reserved for PwD. The identification of such posts is no doubt a prerequisite for reservation in promotion for PwD. There cannot be methodology used to defeat the reservation in promotion. Once that post is identified, the logical conclusion would be that it would be reserved for PwD who have been promoted. The absence of rules to provide for reservation in promotion would not defeat the rights of PwD to a reservation in promotion as it flows from the legislation and in our view, this is the basis of the mandate of this Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta [Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, (2016) 13 SCC 153] and Siddaraju [Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 19 SCC 572] cases.
Kerala High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Yograj Sharma vs D/O Post on 26 April, 2022

21. Coming to the grounds raised by the applicant, we find that the same are sustainable on the basis of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Rajeev Kumar Gupta (supra), National 24 OA No. 655/2018 Federation of the Blind & Ors. (supra), Siddaraju (supra) and Leesamma Joseph (supra) on the said issue wherein, it is clear that the respondents are bound to provide reservation to the benchmark disabled persons in the selection of AAO cadre of IP & TAFS (Group 'B') by modifying the merit list issued vide letter dated 01.10.2018. Also as per the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, applicant is entitled to get reservation in selection of AAO.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Reserve Bank Of India vs A K Nair on 4 July, 2023

16. Be that as it may, mere absence of an express mandate in Chapter VI of the PwD Act, 1995 requiring reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities could not have been construed as not obliging the appropriate Government not to keep reserved vacancies 13 on promotional posts for those answering clauses (i) to (iii) of section 33. Though the language used in section 33 could admit of a little bit of confusion, the crucial words there are “shall appoint in every establishment”. Paraphrased, it implies that while the appropriate Government is making appointment in every establishment, it ought to reserve a minimum of 3 (three) per cent vacancies for persons or class of persons with disability, of which 1 (one) per cent each shall be reserved for those persons with disabilities of the nature mentioned in the clauses therein, i.e., (i) blindness or low vision, (ii) hearing impairment, and (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, and that appointments shall be made on the posts identified for each such disability as in the said clauses. The proviso which permits exemption is not relevant in the present case; hence, its effect is not considered. It is, therefore, the statutory duty enjoined by section 33 that there must be appointment of persons with disabilities in every establishment which ought not to be less than 3 (three) per cent but a minimum of 1 (one) percent of vacancies, available on identified posts for each disability, has to be reserved. The confusion, to our mind, might have stemmed from the narrow interpretation of the word “appoint”, without realizing that “promotion” is also included within “appointment”. The term “appointment” is quite broad and includes appointment by ‘direct recruitment’ as well as appointment by way 14 of ‘promotion’. Prior to Rajiv Kumar Gupta (supra), there was no authoritative pronouncement on the aspect of reservation in promotion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Chandra Sekhar Upreti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 September, 2025

In fact, what seems to emerge is that the appellant State has not implemented the judgment of this Court in Rajeev Kumar Gupta [Rajeev Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, (2016) 13 SCC 153 : (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 605] and Siddaraju [Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 19 SCC 572 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 45] cases. Thus, we consider it appropriate to issue directions to the State of Kerala to implement these judgments and provide for reservation in promotion in all posts after identifying said posts. This exercise should be completed within a period of three months. We are making it time-bound so that the mandate of the Act is not again frustrated by making Section 32 as an excuse for not having identified the post."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

Mahesh Kumar Pandey vs The Chairman, Coal India Limited And Ors on 20 October, 2021

5. Mr. Sabyasachi Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner's case for promotion on the post of Welfare / Personnel in E-1 has not been considered merely on the ground that reservation under Section 33 of the Act of 1995 is applicably only in direct recruitment and it would not apply for promotion which runs contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Rajeev Kumar Gupta and others v. Union of India and others1, State of Kerala and others v. Leesamma Joseph 2 and Siddaraju v. State of Karnataka and others 3.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next