Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R. K. Sabharwal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 February, 1995
35. R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745
In R.K. Sabharwal, a Constitution Bench held that a post-based
roster is a "running account" and not a device to be re-opened
at will. The Court observed:
Union Of India vs Pushpa Rani & Ors on 29 July, 2008
37. Union of India v. Pushpa Rani, (2008) 9 SCC 242
In Pushpa Rani, the Apex Court reiterated that settled rosters
cannot be modified belatedly to the detriment of any category:
B.K. Pavitra vs Union Of India on 10 May, 2019
39. B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129
In B.K. Pavitra (II), the Supreme Court invalidated retrospective
interference with operated rosters, holding that reserved
candidates cannot be deprived of vested benefits:
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
The Nine-Judge Bench in Indra Sawhney upheld the concept of
reservation as a facet of equality but warned against
arbitrariness in implementation. The judgment underlines that
equality is dynamic, and any manipulation of policy to the
detriment of reserved or unreserved groups alike would breach
Article 14.
M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 19 October, 2006
42. M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212
In M. Nagaraj, the Constitution Bench clarified that Article
16(4A) empowers the State to provide reservation in promotion,
but the exercise must be backed by quantifiable data showing
inadequacy of representation and consistency with efficiency of
administration. The Court warned that "efficiency" cannot be
used as a cloak to negate reservation, but the policy must
remain within constitutional balance.
Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta . on 26 September, 2018
43. Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC
396
The Constitution Bench in Jarnail Singh slightly modified M.
Nagaraj by removing the requirement of collecting quantifiable
data on backwardness, but reiterated that once rosters are
settled and promotions made, they cannot be arbitrarily
disturbed. The Court held:
Vijay Thappa vs Union Territory Of J&K on 17 March, 2023
54. Likewise, in OA No. 1171 of 2020 (Rajeev Thappa & Ors.
v. UT of J&K)  the same Bench allowed the application,
quashing the tentative seniority list and the impugned
promotion orders that had granted notional anterior dates to
certain private respondents. The operative order directed that
"each applicant's promotion shall take effect from the date he
has been formally put in charge," that a fresh seniority list be
issued accordingly, and that consequential service benefits be
granted within eight weeks.