Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
Dr. B. N. Srivastava vs Union Of India Through on 20 January, 2011 cites

Ajit Singh And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 16 September, 1999

(4A) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for reservation in matters of promotion, with consequential seniority, to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes which, in the opinion of the State, are not adequately represented in the services under the State. During the course of arguments, when the counsel was confronted with the position aforesaid, he could not further support his contention based upon catch-up rule evolved by the Honble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 601 - M J Rao - Full Document

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

3. Shri S. M. Garg, learned counsel representing the applicant, contends that in the feeder post of Assistant Director (Horticulture) the 3rd respondent was junior to the applicant, and if he got promotion being a Scheduled Caste candidate on the basis of roster point, which would be an accelerated promotion, on the promotion of the applicant, on the basis of catch-up rule, as enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995); Ajit Singh Januja v State of Punjab [(1996) 2 SCC 715]; and Ajit Singh v State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SCC 209], the applicant would regain his seniority over the respondent, and, therefore, on the post of Deputy Director (Horticulture) the applicant would be senior to the respondent. While raising the contention as noted above, it appears that the counsel for the applicant is not aware of the 85th Constitution Amendment, vide which Article 16(4A) was substituted. Article 16(4A), as it stands today, reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 447 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Ajit Singh Januja & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 1 March, 1996

3. Shri S. M. Garg, learned counsel representing the applicant, contends that in the feeder post of Assistant Director (Horticulture) the 3rd respondent was junior to the applicant, and if he got promotion being a Scheduled Caste candidate on the basis of roster point, which would be an accelerated promotion, on the promotion of the applicant, on the basis of catch-up rule, as enunciated by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995); Ajit Singh Januja v State of Punjab [(1996) 2 SCC 715]; and Ajit Singh v State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SCC 209], the applicant would regain his seniority over the respondent, and, therefore, on the post of Deputy Director (Horticulture) the applicant would be senior to the respondent. While raising the contention as noted above, it appears that the counsel for the applicant is not aware of the 85th Constitution Amendment, vide which Article 16(4A) was substituted. Article 16(4A), as it stands today, reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 186 - N P Singh - Full Document
1