Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.33 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Anurag Patel vs U.P. Public Service Commission And Ors on 29 September, 2004
45. The order of the CAT is valid to the extent that it relied
on the ratio propounded by this Court in Anurag Patel v.
Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra.).
Shri Ritesh R. Sah vs Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors on 15 February, 1996
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.
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
The said observations are not of any assistance as no MRC
candidate occupying a General Category slot is being
counted against the quota for the Reserved Category. For
example those MRC candidates belonging to the OBC
category who cut across the general qualifying standard and
are appointed to general posts are not being counted within
the 27% quota earmarked for OBCs. However, MRC
candidates who retain their reserved status and avail of the
benefit of Rule 16 (2) to occupy a reserved post are counted
against the reservation quota. When MRC candidates do not
choose to accept the General Category slot available to them
on account of their merit, but opt to occupy a slot reserved
for reservation category candidates, because that post is
more attractive, then counting him/ her against reservation
44
quota will not violate the law laid down in Indra Sawhney
(supra.).
Union Of India & Anr vs Satya Prakash & Ors on 5 April, 2006
18. The decision in Satya Prakash was rendered prior to
the amendment of Rule 16(2) and the learned judge had not
contemplated the present version of the rule. Hence, this
decision is clearly distinguishable from the present case.
Prior to the decision in Satya Prakash's case (supra.), the
practice had been that a single list of successful candidates
was released in respect of all the vacancies. At that time,
MRC candidates were initially treated as general candidates
and had Rule 16(2) not been amended, a single list would
have been released for all 457 posts which were vacant in
the year under consideration. Accordingly, such a list would
have contained 242 General candidates (including 32 MRC
candidates). There would have been a separate list for 117
OBCs, 66 SCs and 32 STs (excluding MRC candidates).
When the MRC Candidates were shifted from the general list
to the reserved list, there was an ouster of the relatively
lower ranked Reserved Category candidates who were
initially selected as part of the reserved list. For example
when 27 MRC candidates (26 belonging to OBC and 1 SC)
20
would have moved from the General List to the Reserved
List, 26 OBC and 1 SC candidates who were ranked lower
among the 117 OBC and 66 SC candidates initially selected
in the Reserved Category, would have been ousted.
State Of Kerala & Anr vs N. M. Thomas & Ors on 19 September, 1975
In State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (1976) 2 SCC
310, the same proposition was enunciated by A.N. Ray, C.J.
who had held:
T.Devadasan vs The Union Of India And Another on 29 August, 1963
On that
ground "carry forward" principle was not sus-
tained in Devadasan's case (supra).
M. R. Balaji And Others vs State Of Mysore on 28 September, 1962
The same
view was taken in the case of M.R.Balaji v. State
of Mysore. It was said that not more than 50 per
33
cent should be reserved for backward classes.
This ensures equality. Reservation is not a con-
stitutional compulsion but is discretionary ac-
cording to the ruling of this Court in Rajendran's
case (supra)."