Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.43 seconds)THE CONSTITUTION (EIGHTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002
THE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta . on 26 September, 2018
16. The general propositions emanating from the aforementioned
decisions are reaffirmed in "Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta" (2022) 10
SCC 595 (hereinafter referred to as "Jarnail Singh-II") wherein the Hon'ble
13 W.P(S) No.5882 of 2003 and analogous cases
Supreme Court held that it is for the State to assess the inadequacy of
representation of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotional posts
by taking into account the relevant factors.
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
6. In "M. Nagaraj", the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Clause (1)
and Clause (4) of the Article 16 of the Constitution embody the principle of
equality under Article 14. Therefore, in every case where the State decides to
provide for reservation in promotions to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes the said decision must be based on twin considerations viz.
B.K. Pavitra vs Union Of India on 10 May, 2019
11. Some arguments on applicability of creamy-layer are also advanced
by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel
for the petitioners has endeavored to contend that the creamy layer restriction has
not been considered by the State and the Resolution dated 31 st March 2003 does
not exclude such Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes seeking reservation in
promotions. However, Mr. Sreenu Garapati, the learned SC-III, successfully
controverted the attack on Resolution dated 31st March 2003 on such a ground by
referring to several paragraphs in "B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India" (2019) 16 SCC
U.P.Power Corp.Ltd vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors on 27 April, 2012
In "U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd.
v. Rajesh Kumar" (2012) 7 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when
any provision of the Constitution is held valid with certain conditions or riders
then it becomes incumbent on the part of the State to ensure that those conditions
are met and fulfilled.
Pravakar Mallick vs State Of Orissa . on 17 April, 2020
In "Pravakar Mallick v. State of Orissa" (2020) 15 SCC
297, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the parameters as stipulated in "M.
Nagaraj" and "Jarnail Singh-I" on the inadequacy of representation of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in promotional posts in the State are
mandatory conditions for the grant of reservation in promotion with consequential
seniority under Article 16 (4-A), while balancing the same with the requirements
of overall administrative efficiency.