Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.67 seconds)
Man Mohan And Ors. And 5 Other Connected ... vs State And Ors. on 7 November, 2017 cites

State Of Karnataka & Ors vs K. Govindappa & Anr on 20 November, 2008

10. Thus from perusal of the clauses of the advertisement as well as various government orders quoted supra and in particular the Government Order No.1034-Edu of 2013 dated 26.12.2013, it is evident that the State Government was conscious of the fact that even in respect of the village which is predominantly inhabited by SC/ST population, 100 per cent reservation to particular category cannot be provided and therefore, the Government order dated 26.12.2013 was issued by which it was made clear that all candidates holding valid PRC for a particular village would be considered eligible for consideration. It is pertinent to note that 100 per cent reservation in favour of particular class or community is violative of the constitutional mandate contained in Article 16(1) of the Constitution of SWP No.126/2014, MP No.971/2014, MP No.1/2017, MP No.154/2017 c/w SWP No.1272/2016, MP No.01/2016 SWP No.1024/2014, MP No.1353/2017 SWP No.124/2014, MP Nos.941/2015, 940/2015, 969/2014, 152/2014, 4792/2014 SWP No.428/2014, MP Nos.2/2017, 1/2017, 603/2014, 3/2017 SWP 445/2014, MP Nos.1/2017 & 636/2014 Page 6 of 9 India. See: State of Karnataka and Ors. V. K. Govindappa and anr., 2008 (16) SCR 457; Puneet Gulati and ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors,. 2011 AIR (SCW) 507.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 38 - A Kabir - Full Document

Om Prakash Shukla vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors on 18 March, 1986

12. So far as contention made by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are bound by the terms and conditions of the advertisement is concerned, the same has no application to the fact situation of the case as the impugned condition in the advertisement is contrary to the Government Order dated 26.12.2013. Similarly, the submissions that the since the petitioners have participated in the process of selection and therefore they cannot be permitted to challenge the same only is required to be stated to be rejected as the petitioners were declared successful candidates and not the ones who were declared unsuccessful. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studies and Ors. V. K Sivasubramaniyan & Ors, 2016 (1) SCC 454; Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 (Supp.1) SCC 285 have no application as the aforesaid decisions deal with SWP No.126/2014, MP No.971/2014, MP No.1/2017, MP No.154/2017 c/w SWP No.1272/2016, MP No.01/2016 SWP No.1024/2014, MP No.1353/2017 SWP No.124/2014, MP Nos.941/2015, 940/2015, 969/2014, 152/2014, 4792/2014 SWP No.428/2014, MP Nos.2/2017, 1/2017, 603/2014, 3/2017 SWP 445/2014, MP Nos.1/2017 & 636/2014 Page 7 of 9 the cases which pertains to challenge of process of selection at the instance of unsuccessful candidates. The State Government itself realizing even in an area which is predominantly inhabited by SC/ST population, it is not permissible to provide reservation to the extent of 100 per cent has issued an order dated 26.12.2013.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 652 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Madras Inst.Of Dev. Studies & Anr vs K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors on 20 August, 2015

12. So far as contention made by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are bound by the terms and conditions of the advertisement is concerned, the same has no application to the fact situation of the case as the impugned condition in the advertisement is contrary to the Government Order dated 26.12.2013. Similarly, the submissions that the since the petitioners have participated in the process of selection and therefore they cannot be permitted to challenge the same only is required to be stated to be rejected as the petitioners were declared successful candidates and not the ones who were declared unsuccessful. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Madras Institute of Development Studies and Ors. V. K Sivasubramaniyan & Ors, 2016 (1) SCC 454; Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, 1986 (Supp.1) SCC 285 have no application as the aforesaid decisions deal with SWP No.126/2014, MP No.971/2014, MP No.1/2017, MP No.154/2017 c/w SWP No.1272/2016, MP No.01/2016 SWP No.1024/2014, MP No.1353/2017 SWP No.124/2014, MP Nos.941/2015, 940/2015, 969/2014, 152/2014, 4792/2014 SWP No.428/2014, MP Nos.2/2017, 1/2017, 603/2014, 3/2017 SWP 445/2014, MP Nos.1/2017 & 636/2014 Page 7 of 9 the cases which pertains to challenge of process of selection at the instance of unsuccessful candidates. The State Government itself realizing even in an area which is predominantly inhabited by SC/ST population, it is not permissible to provide reservation to the extent of 100 per cent has issued an order dated 26.12.2013.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 283 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Sarwan Kumar & Anr vs Madan Lal Aggarwal on 6 February, 2003

13. So far as decision relied by learned AAG in the case of LPASW No. 73/2016 is concerned, the same has been passed on the ground that since the applications were invited for filling up of the posts in question of Government Order No. 635-Edu of 2010 dated 04.08.2010, the selection has to be finalized without reference to the clarification dated 26.12.2013. In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has not considered the question whether or not clarification would apply retrospectively. It is well settled in law that the clarificatory amendment relates back to the enactment of the provision. See: Sarvan Kumar v. Madan Lal Aggarwal, (2003) 4 SCC 147; CIT V. Vatika Township (P) Ltd, (2015) 1 SCC 1. Therefore, the submission that the notification dated 26.12.2013 has no retrospective application also does not deserves acceptance. So far as decision by the Division bench in LPASW No. 135/2015 is concerned, the same has been passed on the basis of order passed in LPASW No.73/2016 and has been disposed of with the direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter in the light of observations made in order passed in LPASW No.73/2016. The Division Bench in PERLP No.3/2014 c/w CDLSW No.36/2014, LPASW No. 45/2014, has held that respondents are bound by the advertisement notice and are expected to act, accordingly the aforesaid decision is also of no assistance to the respondents in the fact situation of the case as the advertisement notice is contrary to the Government Order dated 23.12.2013.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 160 - Full Document

Commr.Of Income Tax-I,New Delhi vs Vatika Township P.Ltd on 15 September, 2014

13. So far as decision relied by learned AAG in the case of LPASW No. 73/2016 is concerned, the same has been passed on the ground that since the applications were invited for filling up of the posts in question of Government Order No. 635-Edu of 2010 dated 04.08.2010, the selection has to be finalized without reference to the clarification dated 26.12.2013. In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has not considered the question whether or not clarification would apply retrospectively. It is well settled in law that the clarificatory amendment relates back to the enactment of the provision. See: Sarvan Kumar v. Madan Lal Aggarwal, (2003) 4 SCC 147; CIT V. Vatika Township (P) Ltd, (2015) 1 SCC 1. Therefore, the submission that the notification dated 26.12.2013 has no retrospective application also does not deserves acceptance. So far as decision by the Division bench in LPASW No. 135/2015 is concerned, the same has been passed on the basis of order passed in LPASW No.73/2016 and has been disposed of with the direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter in the light of observations made in order passed in LPASW No.73/2016. The Division Bench in PERLP No.3/2014 c/w CDLSW No.36/2014, LPASW No. 45/2014, has held that respondents are bound by the advertisement notice and are expected to act, accordingly the aforesaid decision is also of no assistance to the respondents in the fact situation of the case as the advertisement notice is contrary to the Government Order dated 23.12.2013.
Supreme Court of India Cites 64 - Cited by 888 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1