Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.66 seconds)Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India vs E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd on 1 February, 2000
54. The precedents in Kerala State Toddy Shop Contractors
Association (Supra), Majurani Routray (Supra), and Union of India
Vs. E.I.D. Parry (India) Ltd (Supra) suggest that the Courts should
not, in the absence of any challenge or proper pleadings, proceed to suo
Page 29 of 42
motu quash legislation or subordinate rules.
Vijay Lakshmi vs Punjab University And Others on 23 September, 2003
In Vijay Lakshmi Vs. Punjab University and Others (supra),
the rule which provided that only women will be appointed to the posts
of "Principal", "lady teacher", "lady doctor" or a "superintendent of a
lady hostel" was held to be intra vires and constitutional. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the college in question was a women's college.
Therefore, this rule of restricting appointments only to women was a
policy decision of the State, warranting no judicial review.
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
75. At least, prima facie, we do not agree that the ceiling of 50%
would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Paragraph 514 of Indra Swahney (supra) has to be read contextually.
The sentence that "Article 15(3) cannot save the situation since all
reservations in the services under the State can only be made under
Article 16" was made in the context of the apprehension that women
from advanced classes will secure all the posts, leaving those from
backward classes without any. The Court noted that this could amount
to indirectly providing a statutory reservation for the advanced classes
as such, which was impermissible under any of the provisions of Article
Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs P.B. Vijayakumar & Anr on 12 May, 1995
68. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that Article 15(2) deals
with every kind of State action in relation to the citizens of this country.
Every sphere of the activity of the State is controlled by Article 15(1).
There is, therefore, no reason to exclude from the ambit of Article 15(1)
employment under the State. At the same time, Article 15(3) permits
special provisions for women. Both Articles 15(1) and 15(3) go
together. Therefore, in dealing with employment under the State, one
has to bear in mind both Articles 15 and 16 - the former being a more
general provision and the latter, a more specific provision. Since Article
16 does not touch upon any special provision for women being made by
the State, it cannot in any manner derogate from the power conferred
upon the State in this connection under Article 15(3).
Toguru Sudhakar Reddy And Another vs The Govt. Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 9 December, 1992
37. Learned Advocate General and learned counsel appearing for
some of the selected candidates submitted that the ceiling of 50% in
reservations applied only to the vertical reservations under Article 16(4)
of the Constitution. They submitted that this was not a case of
reservation per se, but a case where the State or the rule makers, as a
policy, felt that only women would be best suited for the posts of Lady
Supervisors, given the nature of duties and functions assigned to these
posts and the target groups that such appointees were expected to work
for. In any event, they submitted that the 50% rules would not apply,
since this was not a case of reservation under Article 16(4) of the
Constitution. They relied on Toguru Sudhakar Reddy and Another
Vs. Government of A.P. and Others9 and Arshnoor Kaur and
Another Vs. The Union of India and Others10.
Surender Paswan & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 19 April, 2010
[See Surender Paswan Vs. State
of Bihar (2010) 6 SCC 680].