Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.32 seconds)Anil Kumar Gupta, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 28 July, 1995
7.A provision for women made under Article 15(3) respect of employment
is a special reservation as contacted from the social reservation under
Article 16(4). The method of implementing special reservation, which is a
horizontal reservation, cutting across vertical reservations, was explained
by this Court in Anil Kumar Gupta v State of U.P. (1995) 5 SCC [73] thus:
M.Satheesh Kumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 11 August, 2014
“29.The issue in regard to horizontal and vertical reservation in
public employment was elaborately discussed and clarified by the Apex
Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria, supra Paragraphs 7, 9, 10 and
11 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference:
Gaurav Pratap Yadav And 4 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 17 March, 2020
“Therefore, the respondents should not get confused by the said judgment and
otherwise we have further clarified that the that the judgments in the case of P.B.
12/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.1830 of 2014
Vijayakumar and Saurav Yadav and others supra referring to Article 15(3) of the
Constitution would be read along with the Constitution Bench judgment in the
case of Indra Sawhney supra where it has been held that reservation in favour of
female candidates is not saved by Article 15(3) of the Constitution. It may be that
the judgment of Indra Sawhney in reference to the relevant paragraph quoted
above was not cited before the Apex Court by Learned Counsel for the respective
parties in those cases and in any case what will prevail on this Court is the
judgment of the Constitution Bench, if there exists conflict between judgments of
the Constitution Bench and the subsequent judgments of a Bench of lesser
quorum.”
Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to
be considered.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1