Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Unknown vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Chief ... on 24 March, 2026 cites

Vijay Lakshmi vs Punjab University And Others on 23 September, 2003

In Vijay Lakshmi Vs. Punjab University and Others (supra), the rule which provided that only women will be appointed to the posts of "Principal", "lady teacher", "lady doctor" or a "superintendent of a lady hostel" was held to be intra vires and constitutional. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the college in question was a women's college. Therefore, this rule of restricting appointments only to women was a policy decision of the State, warranting no judicial review.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 147 - Full Document

Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992

75. At least, prima facie, we do not agree that the ceiling of 50% would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Paragraph 514 of Indra Swahney (supra) has to be read contextually. The sentence that "Article 15(3) cannot save the situation since all reservations in the services under the State can only be made under Article 16" was made in the context of the apprehension that women from advanced classes will secure all the posts, leaving those from backward classes without any. The Court noted that this could amount to indirectly providing a statutory reservation for the advanced classes as such, which was impermissible under any of the provisions of Article
Supreme Court of India Cites 136 - Cited by 1429 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs P.B. Vijayakumar & Anr on 12 May, 1995

68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that Article 15(2) deals with every kind of State action in relation to the citizens of this country. Every sphere of the activity of the State is controlled by Article 15(1). There is, therefore, no reason to exclude from the ambit of Article 15(1) employment under the State. At the same time, Article 15(3) permits special provisions for women. Both Articles 15(1) and 15(3) go together. Therefore, in dealing with employment under the State, one has to bear in mind both Articles 15 and 16 - the former being a more general provision and the latter, a more specific provision. Since Article 16 does not touch upon any special provision for women being made by the State, it cannot in any manner derogate from the power conferred upon the State in this connection under Article 15(3).
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 176 - R M Sahai - Full Document

Toguru Sudhakar Reddy And Another vs The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 9 December, 1992

37. Learned Advocate General and learned counsel appearing for some of the selected candidates submitted that the ceiling of 50% in reservations applied only to the vertical reservations under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. They submitted that this was not a case of reservation per se, but a case where the State or the rule makers, as a policy, felt that only women would be best suited for the posts of Lady Supervisors, given the nature of duties and functions assigned to these posts and the target groups that such appointees were expected to work for. In any event, they submitted that the 50% rules would not apply, since this was not a case of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. They relied on Toguru Sudhakar Reddy and Another Vs. Government of A.P. and Others9 and Arshnoor Kaur and Another Vs. The Union of India and Others10.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar ... vs State Of Bihar on 25 August, 2023

53. This is not an exceptional case where, despite the patent unconstitutionality, the petitioner sought to enforce the unconstitutional provision and to seek a benefit under the same. Secondly, this is also not a case where the provision in question could be described as "so obtrusively unconstitutional or involving some egregious violation of fundamental rights. Furthermore, this is certainly not a case where the issue in question could be said to have been concluded by a binding decision of either a Larger Bench of this Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, we do not agree with the learned Amicus Curaie's submission that the Chaukidar (Supra) principle needs to be invoked in the present batch of matters.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abhay Kumar Kispotta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 January, 2022

73. Considering the law on the subject, and applying the same to the facts in the present batch of matters, we find it difficult to agree with the view expressed by Chhattisgarh High Court in Abhay Kumar Kispotta (supra) to the effect that Article 15 would not apply to public employment, because there is nothing in Article 15 that refers to public employment, or, because, Article 16 was a specific article dealing with issues of equality in public employment.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Arshnoor Kaur vs Union Of India on 4 August, 2023

37. Learned Advocate General and learned counsel appearing for some of the selected candidates submitted that the ceiling of 50% in reservations applied only to the vertical reservations under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. They submitted that this was not a case of reservation per se, but a case where the State or the rule makers, as a policy, felt that only women would be best suited for the posts of Lady Supervisors, given the nature of duties and functions assigned to these posts and the target groups that such appointees were expected to work for. In any event, they submitted that the 50% rules would not apply, since this was not a case of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. They relied on Toguru Sudhakar Reddy and Another Vs. Government of A.P. and Others9 and Arshnoor Kaur and Another Vs. The Union of India and Others10.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next