Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.23 seconds)
Chandra Sekhar Upreti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 18 September, 2025 cites

Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 30 June, 2016

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."
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 104 - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs National Federation Of The Blind & Ors on 8 October, 2013

3 WA-1772-2025 to amend, modify or repeal it if deemed necessary. 4 Since appellant was not granted promotion, therefore, he filed WP No. 9054 of 2012 which was disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of appellant for promotion. However by order dated 6/2/2017, claim of appellant has been rejected on the ground that the Act of 1995 is applicable to the Central Government employees and as per the provisions of Promotion Rules, 2002 only candidates belonging to Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes are entitled for reservation and promotion. It was further held that there is provision for reservation at the time of recruitment and not for promotion. Since the action of respondent was contrary to the law laid down by Supreme Court, therefore, appellant filed contempt petition before Supreme Court. Thereafter during the pendency of contempt petition, appellant was granted promotion to the post of Assistant Director / Manager (Industry) by order dated 6.1.2018.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 287 - P Sathasivam - Full Document

Union Of India vs Ravi Prakash Gupta on 13 September, 2021

In Union of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta [Union of India v. Ravi Prakash Gupta, (2010) 7 SCC 626 : (2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 448] also, this Court mandated the identification of Signature Not Verified Signed by: MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Signing time: 9/27/2025 2:58:37 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:23848 7 WA-1772-2025 posts for purposes of reservation. Thus, what is required is identification of posts in every establishment until exempted under proviso to Section 33. No doubt the identification of the posts was a prerequisite to appointment, but then the appointment cannot be frustrated by refusing to comply with the prerequisite.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

S. Siddaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 February, 2019

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."
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - D Maheshwari - Full Document
1   2 Next