Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.95 seconds)
Shri Shiv Dayal Sharma vs Union Of India Through on 25 April, 2014 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 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

All India Equality Forum vs Union Of India Through on 2 December, 2010

7. A Full Bench of this Tribunal has also considered the issue earlier in great detail in its order dated 02.12.2010 in OA No. 2211/2008 - All India Equality Forum and Others v. Union of India and Others. The said order has also directed the Respondent Railways therein not to give accelerated promotion and consequential seniority to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe category employees till such time pre-conditions on which Article 16(4A) of the Constitution is to operate, are complied with. The concluding part of the said order reads as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 62 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Suraj Bhan Meena & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 7 December, 2010

13. The present OA is filed without making any of the affected parties as respondents to the OA. Further, in the impugned orders, which are sought to be quashed, in addition to the ineligible persons, i.e., persons sought to be promoted by virtue of applying the rule of reservation in promotions, others who belongs to all categories, i.e., General and Reserved categories, whose cases would not be effected, even the rule of reservation is not applied are also there. In view of the same, we are not proposing to quash the impugned orders. Alternatively, the ends of justice would be met if a direction is issued to the respondents to review the impugned order issued by applying rule of reservation and to redo the entire exercise in strict compliance of the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in M. Nagaraj and Others v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 and Suraj Bhan Meena v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 1 SCC 467, and accordingly, redraw the names of Sub Inspectors (Executive) for admission to Promotion List `F (Exe.) for the vacancy year 2013-14, as per rules. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 114 - A Kabir - Full Document

K. Manorama vs Union Of India & Ors on 29 September, 2010

3. The Respondents in their reply submitted that the Applicants have sought quashing of the impugned order dated 07.05.2013 in respect of 17 SC/ST employees who are junior to the Applicants and have been promoted as Passenger Guard. They have submitted that no cause of action has accrued in favour of the Applicants to assail Railway Boards instructions issued vide RBE No.29/2008. They have also stated that the Respondents have issued the impugned orders strictly in terms of the prevailing rules and guidelines on the subject. As long as the said rules prevail, the Respondents cannot be seen to be acting against the rules/guidelines prescribed in this case. They have also stated that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of K. Manorma Vs. U.O.I. 2010 (10) SCC 232 has no relevance in the present case wherein promotions of Sr. Goods Guard to the post of Passenger Guard have been made on the seniority-cum-suitability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1