Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.54 seconds)
Union Of India vs J.Rajmohan on 1 May, 2009 cites

R. K. Sabharwal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 February, 1995

15. Mr. Govindaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the question mooted before the Tribunal was never whether the SC/ST candidates could be considered against the general merit quota based on their merit level, but was that after the verdict passed by the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal's case [cited supra] and the subsequent decisions, the posts had to be identified and the recruitment had to W.P(C) No. 32141 of 2009 and O.P.(CAT) No. 2947 of 2011 : 18 : be effected only in respect of such posts. By virtue of the course pursued by the Railways, giving en-mass appointments to all selected candidates including the SC/ST candidates in the unreserved quota, that too, without pursuing timely selection process, all the slots of SC/ST candidates were left open and again forward giving undue benefit to the reservation segment, at the cost of the unreserved category like the applicants. If the posts are filled up, with reference to the date of arising of vacancies, the verdict passed by the CAT is liable to be sustained, submits the learned counsel. After such exercise, if there are carried forward vacancies of SC/ST, the applicants do not have any objection in filling up all such slots en-bloc, from the persons belonging to those categories. It is stated that there was no grievance even after issuance of Annexure A9 and that the issue has popped up only because of the interpretation/clarification given as per Annexure A1, which has been intercepted by the Tribunal. It is further pointed out that non-impleadment of the candidates concerned has not caused any prejudice to them, as the Tribunal has specifically stated in Ext. P5 order that they need not be reverted but could be adjusted against the carried forward vacancies and that their W.P(C) No. 32141 of 2009 and O.P.(CAT) No. 2947 of 2011 : 19 : seniority which may undergo some change could be effected only after issuing due notice to them.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 786 - K Singh - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors. Etc vs Virpal Singh Chauhan Etc on 10 October, 1995

20. As contended by the learned standing counsel for the W.P(C) No. 32141 of 2009 and O.P.(CAT) No. 2947 of 2011 : 23 : Railways, the contention of the applicants is that the slots have to be filled up with reference to the date of occurrence of the vacancies and if it be so, the vacancies may have to be filled up even by accommodating a merit candidate against a reserved slot. If the said proposition is accepted, it will be against the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in R.K. Sabharwal's case [cited supra] and Virpal Singh's case [cited supra]. The learned counsel further submitted that, as pointed out in Ground C, it is not practical to locate the occurrence of vacancy. It is also pointed out that how the vacancies are to be identified, how the vacancies are to be filled up, including the anticipatory vacancies etc. are dealt with under paragraphs 215 (f) (i) and 215 (f) (ii) of the Special Rules in the Railways Establishment Manuel. By virtue of the above Rules, the vacancy will have to be worked out for a given period and to be proceeded with for filling up, which alone has been pursued by the petitioners. It is also pointed out that the aforesaid provisions in the Railway Establishment Manuel have not been subjected to challenge by the applicants.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 447 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992

4. Before proceeding with the facts of the case, it will be worthwhile to have a look at the reservation scenario, as it exists as on date. The land mark judgment with reference to Article 16 (4) on reservation was rendered by a '9 member Bench' of the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC Supp. 217]. The Constitution was amended as per the 77th amendment, whereby sub Article 4-A was introduced to Article 16; by virtue of which, reservation was made possible in the case of 'promotion' as well. The provision was further amended as per 85th amendment, whereby the 'seniority' was also caused to be protected in such cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 136 - Cited by 1429 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Madhav S/O Gajanan Chaubal & Anr on 18 September, 1996

- SC/ST. Therefore, enclosed roster (Annexure III) for cadre strength upto 14 posts may be followed. The principles of operating the rosters has been detailed in the Explanatory Notes. The reservation even in single post have been held as constitutional and valid recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Madhav sio Gajanan Chauhba and others JT 1996(9) SC 320.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 22 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1