Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 782 (3.78 seconds)
Documents citing Shri Ritesh R. Sah vs Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors on 15 February, 1996

Chandan vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 October, 2023

The Hon'ble Apex Court, by considering all the judgments as referred above, has also considered the judgment rendered in Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Ors., (supra); R.K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (supra); Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684; as also the judgment rendered in Saurav Yadav and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2021) 4 SCC 542 has been pleased to answer the issue. The appeal was dismissed and the view of the High Court was upheld wherein it was observed and held that the two reserved category candidates, namely, Mr. Alok Kumar Yadav and Mr. Dinesh Kumar having more marks than the general category candidates appointed, were entitled to the appointment in the general category and the seats reserved for OBC category were required to be filled in from and amongst the remaining candidates belonging to the OBC category. Consequently. Paragraph-30 of the said judgment reads as under:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document

The Controller Of Exam.,Bihar vs Nidhi Sinha & Anr on 24 June, 2016

"17. X X X X X X. In view of the legal position enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases the Patna High Court LPA No.433 of 2000 6/30 conclusion is irresistible that a student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. But at the same time the provisions should be so made that it will not work out to the disadvantage of such candidate and he may not be placed at a more disadvantageous position than the other less meritorious reserved category candidates. The aforesaid objective can be achieved if after finding out the candidates from amongst the reserved category who would otherwise come in the open merit list and then asking their option for admission into the different colleges which have been kept reserved for reserved category and thereafter the cases of less meritorious reserved category candidates should be considered and they be allotted seats in whichever colleges the seats should be available. In other words, while a reserved category candidate entitled to admission on the basis of his merit will have the option of taking admission in the colleges where a specified number of seats have been kept reserved for reserved category Patna High Court LPA No.433 of 2000 7/30 but while computing the percentage of reservation he will be deemed to have been admitted as a open category candidate and not as a reserved category candidate. X X X X X X. (Emphasis supplied) It has to be kept in mind that the decision, in case of Ritesh R. Sah (supra), related to admission to medical institutions.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Assistant Engineer (Highways) ... vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ...

“31. The respondents have also placed strong reliance on this Court's decision in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr.Y.L.Yamul (1996) 3 SCC 253). The question in that case was whether a Reserved Category candidate who is entitled to be selected for admission in open competition on the basis of his/her own merit should be counted against the quota meant for the Reserved Category or should he be treated as a general candidate. The Court reached the conclusion that when a candidate is admitted to an educational institution on his own merit, then such admission is not to be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes or any other Reserved Category.
Madras High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 0 - M M Sundresh - Full Document

Koganti Jayakrishna And Anr. vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 13 November, 2001

16. The impugned order has neither changed any rule nor introduced a new rule or a new qualification and it is only classificatory in nature designed to ensure effective implementation of the rules of reservation and the law declared by the Apex Court. The intention of the Government was to give status of a statutory rule to the instructions in due course as indicated in Para 6 of the order. The instructions are enforceable as they are in not conflict with the rules but merely supplement the same. As per the judgment of the Supreme Court, as student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonged to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category and the same has been given effect to in the impugned order. The impugned order neither increases nor diminishes the quantum of reservation provided for any particular category including those belonging to open category. The rules do not provide for sliding as contended by the petitioners. Where a reserved category candidate secured a seat on the basis of his merit, his choice of college and course of study cannot be denied, but that seat cannot be counted as against the quota reserved for the category to which he belongs. If the resultant vacancy is filled up by merit candidate without any reference to the reserved category, it would be in violation of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ritesh Shah's case. The seats secured by reserved category candidates in open competition should be excluded while computing the total number of sets occupied by the candidates belonging to reserved category. The writ petitions are based on mere apprehensions, as the impugned order did not introduce any new rule.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 100 - Cited by 3 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Tripurari Sharan And Anr. vs Ranjit Kumar Yadav . on 11 January, 2018

Even though that decision had in turn relied on the verdict of this Court in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. T.L. Yamul, the latter case is distinguishable from the present case with respect to the facts in issue. However, we cannot approve of the conclusions arrived at in the Central Administrative Tribunal order as it failed to take note of the unique characteristics of UPSC examinations.” (Emphasis supplied) Hence it is amply clear that, the Constitution Bench makes a distinction between two types of selections, i.e., selection to medical colleges through a common entrance test, and selection to posts in services through the UPSC examination.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 32 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document

Alok Kumar Pandit vs State Of Assam & Ors on 26 November, 2012

The decision in Anurag Patel in turn referred to the earlier decision in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul. However, we have already distinguished the judgment in Ritesh R. Sah. That decision was given in relation to reservation for admission to postgraduate medical courses and the same cannot be readily applied in the present circumstances where we are dealing with the examinations conducted by UPSC. The ultimate aim of civil services aspirants is to qualify for the most coveted services and each of the services have quotas for reserved classes, the benefits of which are availed by MRC candidates for preferred service. As highlighted earlier, the benefit accrued by different candidates who secure admission in a particular educational institution is of a homogeneous nature. However, the benefits accruing from successfully qualifying in UPSC examination are of a varying nature since some services are coveted more than others.” (emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Saurav Yadav vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 December, 2020

[Vide Indira Sawhney, R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab, Union of India v Virpal Singh Chauvan and Ritesh R. Shah v Dr. Y.L Yamul. But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for scheduled castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of 'Scheduled Castes-Women'. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of scheduled caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 35 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Union Of India vs Ramesh Ram & Ors on 7 May, 2010

Even though that decision had in turn relied on the verdict of this Court in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L.Yamul and Others, (supra.), the latter case is distinguishable from the present case with respect to the facts in issue. However, we cannot approve of the conclusions arrived at in the Central Administrative Tribunal order as it failed to take note of the unique characteristics of the UPSC examinations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Union Of India vs Ramesh Ram & Ors on 7 May, 2010

Even though that decision had in turn relied on the verdict of this Court in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L.Yamul and Others, (supra.), the latter case is distinguishable from the present case with respect to the facts in issue. However, we cannot approve of the conclusions arrived at in the Central Administrative Tribunal order as it failed to take note of the unique characteristics of the UPSC examinations.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 147 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next