Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.41 seconds)Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ajit Singh Januja & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 1 March, 1996
17] At that point of time, another three Judge Bench came
to decide a case from the State of Haryana in Jagdish Lal
(supra) and took a view contrary to Virpal Singh Chauhan
(supra) and Ajit Singh Januja (supra). It held that the
general rule in the Service Rules relating to seniority from
the date of continuous officiation which was applicable to
candidates promoted under the normal seniority/selection
procedure would be attracted even to the roster point
promotees as otherwise there would be discrimination
against the reserved candidates.
M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 19 October, 2006
7] Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that this court, by its order
dated 15th July 2002 had stayed the operation of the
impugned judgment and order dated 30th March 2001 but
page 5 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:51:11 :::
JUDG-WP-3214-02-ORS
had clarified that such stay will not affect the promotion
that has already been granted to the general category
candidates and will also not prevent the petitioners from
considering the cases of SC / ST candidates for promotions.
All such orders were however made subject to the final
decision in these petitions. Mr. Suresh Kumar points out that
most of the respondents belonging to the reserved category
have since been promoted. Some have been promoted on
more than one occasions. He points out that most of the
respondents have also retired from service. He submits that
if the impugned judgments and orders are upheld at this
stage, there would be needless administrative chaos,
without any significant benefits to the respondents. Mr.
Suresh Kumar submits that in any case, in the light of the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.
Nagaraj (supra), the direction for consideration of the case
of the reserved category candidates for promotions may not
possibly be implemented, in the absence of fulfillment of
predicates as prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
itself. For all these reasons, Mr. Suresh Kumar submits that
the impugned judgments and orders may be set aside.
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
In
coming to the above conclusions, the three Judge Bench
relied upon the principles laid down by the nine Judge
Bench in Indira Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Suppl.
R. K. Sabharwal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 February, 1995
(3)
SCC 217] and by the Constitution Bench in R.K.Sabharwal
vs. State of Punjab [1995 (2) SCC 745]. These two cases
had laid down earlier the manner in which the rights of the
general candidates and the reserved candidates ought to be
balanced.
Ashok Kumar Gupta , Vidya Sagar Gupta & ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 21 March, 1997
The Bench also observed
that the right to promotion was a statutory right while the
rights of the reserved candidates under Article 16(4) and
Article 16(4A) were fundamental rights and in that behalf, it
followed Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. [1997 (5)
SCC 201] where a similar principle had been laid down.
Jagdish Lal & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 May, 1997
The impugned judgments and orders
have been influenced by the ruling in Jagdish Lal (supra),
even though, the said ruling has been specifically overruled
in Ajit Singh (II) (supra). Similarly, the principles in relation
to the catch up rule do not appear to have been correctly
applied by the CAT in disposing of the original applications
and review petitions by the impugned judgments and
orders. In this view of the matter, there is no option but to
set aside the impugned judgments and orders made by the
CAT.
The Companies (Amendment) Act, 2001
Union Of India And Ors. Etc vs Virpal Singh Chauhan Etc on 10 October, 1995
21] As regards point (3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
again, accepted the principle in Virpal Singh Chauhan
(supra), Ajit Singh Juneja (supra). However, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that even if seniority on a roster-
point promotee does not count, experience of both groups
can be considered as a part of merit for further promotion.
Such principle would be equitable balancing of the
'experience' of the candidates at various levels. On such
basis, the point (3) came to be disposed of.
22] As regards point (4), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
recorded the following conclusions at paragraphs 89 and 92,
page 16 of 24
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2018 01:51:11 :::
JUDG-WP-3214-02-ORS
which reads thus:
1