Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.29 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
R. K. Sabharwal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 February, 1995
reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the
quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC
candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies,
equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it
cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire
reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under
open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992
SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] , R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab
[(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] , Union of India
v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC
813] and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul [(1996) 3 SCC 253] .) But the aforesaid
principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal
(special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within
the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up
the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of
candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of
―Scheduled Caste women‖. If the number of women in such list is equal to or
more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for
further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any
shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be
taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom
of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special)
reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on
merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal
reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example:
Union Of India And Ors. Etc vs Virpal Singh Chauhan Etc on 10 October, 1995
reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the
quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC
candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies,
equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it
cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire
reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under
open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992
SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] , R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab
[(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] , Union of India
v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC
813] and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul [(1996) 3 SCC 253] .) But the aforesaid
principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal
(special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within
the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up
the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of
candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of
―Scheduled Caste women‖. If the number of women in such list is equal to or
more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for
further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any
shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be
taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom
of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special)
reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on
merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal
reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example:
Shri Ritesh R. Sah vs Dr. Y.L. Yamul & Ors on 15 February, 1996
reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the
quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC
candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies,
equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it
cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire
reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under
open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992
SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] , R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab
[(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] , Union of India
v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC
813] and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul [(1996) 3 SCC 253] .) But the aforesaid
principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal
(special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within
the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up
the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of
candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of
―Scheduled Caste women‖. If the number of women in such list is equal to or
more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for
further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any
shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be
taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom
of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special)
reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on
merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal
reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example:
Anil Kumar Gupta, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 28 July, 1995
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court explained the compartmentalised horizontal
reservation concept in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. 3 and observed
thus:
Union Of India vs K. M. Shankarappa on 6 November, 2000
25. It is apt to extract the observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of
India Vs. K.M. Shankarappa,4, which reads thus:
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Karunesh Kumar on 12 December, 2022
27. Learned Advocate General would contend that having participated and
was unsuccessful in the selection process, the petitioner cannot turn around
and complain about the infringement, if any. Learned Advocate General
placed reliance upon the judgments in State of U.P. Vs. Karunesh Kumar5.