Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Awanish Kumar @ Awanish Kumar Shahi vs State Of Bihar on 25 July, 2009
In the case of Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar: (2010) 12
SCC 576, the Supreme Court held as under:-
Dhananjay Malik & Ors vs State Of Uttaranchal & Ors on 5 March, 2008
17. A similar view has also been expressed by the Supreme Court in the
case of Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors.:
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
Nonetheless, the principles
discussed in T. Devadasan (supra) and Indra Sawhney (supra) would
be relevant, since, the only question to be addressed is whether
reservation in admissions is being provided or not. Indisputably, the
provision for "carry forward" is for the purposes of providing
reservation in admissions. The reservations in admissions can be made
in different ways and the point roster system which is based on carry
forward of reservation quota (both negative and positive) is one such
system of providing allocation of seats for the purposes of reservation.
We find no principle under which this system could, per se, be
considered as impermissible or unconstitutional.
M. R. Balaji And Others vs State Of Mysore on 28 September, 1962
The Court applied the principle
enunciated by the Supreme Court in an earlier decision in M.R. Balaji v.
State of Mysore: AIR 1963 SC 649, wherein it was held that reservation
exceeding 50% of the seats available would be unconstitutional. Justice
LPA Nos.458/2013 & 506/2013 Page 17 of 28
Subba Rao did not agree with this view and in his dissenting opinion
expressed as under:
State Of Kerala & Anr vs N. M. Thomas & Ors on 19 September, 1975
21. The dissenting opinion of Justice Subba Rao was upheld by the
Supreme Court in a later decision in the case of State of Kerala and Ors. v.
N.M. Thomas and Ors.: AIR 1976 SC 490.
The Central Educational Institutions (Reservation In Admission) Act, 2006
T.Devadasan vs The Union Of India And Another on 29 August, 1963
Nonetheless, the principles
discussed in T. Devadasan (supra) and Indra Sawhney (supra) would
be relevant, since, the only question to be addressed is whether
reservation in admissions is being provided or not. Indisputably, the
provision for "carry forward" is for the purposes of providing
reservation in admissions. The reservations in admissions can be made
in different ways and the point roster system which is based on carry
forward of reservation quota (both negative and positive) is one such
system of providing allocation of seats for the purposes of reservation.
We find no principle under which this system could, per se, be
considered as impermissible or unconstitutional.