Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 47 (0.54 seconds)
Anwar Khan vs General Manager N C Rly on 20 March, 2024 cites

M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 19 October, 2006

We are of the firm view that a fresh exercise in the light of the judgment of the Constitution Bench in M. Nagaraj (supra) is a categorical imperative. The stand that the constitutional amendments have facilitated the reservation In promotion with consequential seniority and have given the stamp of approval to the Act 32 and the Rules cannot withstand close scrutiny inasmuch as the Constitution Bench has clearly opined that Articles 16(4A) and 16(4B) are enabling provisions and the State can make provisions for the same on certain basis or foundation. The conditions precedent, have not been satisfied. No exercise has been undertaken. What has been argued with vehemence is that it is not necessary as the concept of reservation in promotion was already in vogue. We are unable to accept the said submission, for when the provisions of the Constitution are treated valid with certain conditions or riders, it becomes incumbent on the part of the State to appreciate and apply the test so that its amendments can be tested and withstand the scrutiny on parameters laid down therein."
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 793 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors. Etc vs Virpal Singh Chauhan Etc on 10 October, 1995

(ii) Have Virpal [Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813] and Ajit Singh [Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 715 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 540 : (1996) 33 ATC 239] been correctly decided and has Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 1550] been correctly decided?
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 447 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta . on 26 September, 2018

69. The State should justify reservation in promotions with respect to the cadre to which promotion is made. Taking into account the data pertaining to a "group", which would be an amalgamation of certain cadres in a service, would not give the correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre in relation to which reservation in promotions is sought to be made. Rosters are prepared cadre-wise and not group-wise. Sampling method which was adopted by the Ratna Prabha Committee might be a statistical formula appropriate 31 for collection of data. However, for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data to assess representation of SCs and STs for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions, cadre, which is a part of a "group", is the unit and the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre. Therefore, we hold that the conclusion of this Court in B.K. Pavitra (2) [B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129] approving the collection of data on the basis of "groups" and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] and Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 221 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992

In Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab [Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 715 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 540 : (1996) 33 ATC 239] , by placing reliance on the principle laid down in Indra Sawhney case [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] and also the Constitution Bench judgment in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] , a three-Judge Bench accepted the principle of the "catch-up rule" as laid down in Virpal Singh Chauhan case [Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813] observing that the balance must be maintained in such a manner that there was no reverse discrimination against the general category candidates and that any rule/circular or order which gives seniority to the reserved category candidates promoted at the roster point would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 136 - Cited by 1429 - B P Reddy - Full Document

B.K. Pavitra vs Union Of India on 10 May, 2019

69. The State should justify reservation in promotions with respect to the cadre to which promotion is made. Taking into account the data pertaining to a "group", which would be an amalgamation of certain cadres in a service, would not give the correct picture of the inadequacy of representation of SCs and STs in the cadre in relation to which reservation in promotions is sought to be made. Rosters are prepared cadre-wise and not group-wise. Sampling method which was adopted by the Ratna Prabha Committee might be a statistical formula appropriate 31 for collection of data. However, for the purpose of collection of quantifiable data to assess representation of SCs and STs for the purpose of providing reservation in promotions, cadre, which is a part of a "group", is the unit and the data has to be collected with respect to each cadre. Therefore, we hold that the conclusion of this Court in B.K. Pavitra (2) [B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129] approving the collection of data on the basis of "groups" and not cadres is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in M. Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] and Jarnail Singh [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 75 - Cited by 24 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next