Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.67 seconds)Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Radhey Shyam Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 December, 1996
(xi) Even though RADHEY SHYAM's case (supra) dealt with
recruitment to a service, the analogy is applicable to the instant
cases. In the said case, examination was held for selection to
non-technical class 3 posts in the departments of Government of
India in the subordinate offices on zonal basis. It was held that
there was no nexus between the process of zonewise selection and
the object to be achieved and that the process of selection
envisaged in the advertisement in question would lead to
discriminatory results because of adopting the said process of
zonewise selection and would result in the devaluation of merit at
the selection examination by selecting a candidate having lesser
marks over the meritorious candidate who has secured more marks and
consequently, the rule of equal chance for equal marks would be
violated.
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
But all such aspects relating to reservation and
particularly, relating to reservation to backward, classes were
considered by a nine-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in INDRA
SAWNEY v. UNION OF INDIA (AIR 1993 S.C. 477). The aspects of
reservation under Article 15 (4) as also Article 16 (4) of the
Constitution were considered comprehensively. Dealing with the
vertical reservation, it was held that as a rule, the reservation
on the whole should not exceed 50% unless extraordinary exceptions
can be carved out. To get over the same, Tamil Nadu Backward
Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation Of Seat
In Educational Institutions And Of Appointments Of Posts In The
Services Under The State) Act, 1993 (Tamil Nadu Act 45 of 1994) has
been enacted. But the constitutional validity of the same is
pending adjudication before the Supreme Court.
Minor P. Rajendran vs State Of Madras & Ors on 17 January, 1968
The principles laid down by the earlier decisions of the
Supreme Court in RAJENDRAN's case (supra) and A. PERIAKARUPPAN's
case (supra) were followed.
Dr. Dinesh Kumar & Ors vs Motilal Nehru Medical College ... on 1 May, 1985
(vii) In DINESH KUMAR v. MOTILAL NEHRU, ALLAHABAD (AIR
1985 S.C. 1059), it was held that admission to medical course on
the basis of marks obtained at qualifying examinations held by
different universities is violative of Article 14. In the said
case, the admissions were made not on the basis of marks obtained
at the entrance examination conducted by Government of India or
Indian Medical Council on All India basis but were made on the
basis of evaluation made by respective Universities of different
States.
Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... vs Thukral Anjali Deokumar & Ors on 7 March, 1989
(viii) In GREATER BOMBAY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. THUKRAL
ANJALI (AIR 1989 S.C. 1194), college wise institutionalised
preference was held to be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation And ... vs Nilaybhai R. Thakore And Another on 13 October, 1999
(ix) Same is the principles laid down by the Supreme Court
in AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION v. NILAYBHAI THAKUR (AIR 2000
S.C. 114) where Rules were framed restricting admission only to
those who have acquired qualification from institutions situated
within the Municipal limits. The classification limiting
admissions only to candidates from institutions within the
Municipal Limits was held to be arbitrary not having any nexus with
the object.
Parents Association And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors on 28 January, 2000
(x) Yet another judgment of the Supreme Court
highlighting the said aspect is PARENTS ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF
INDIA AIR 2000 S.C. 845), in which a clear distinction is laid
between the reservations to Scheduled Tribes of Andaman and Nicobar
Islands and the persons, who had settled after 1942, with 10 years
education in islands. The Supreme Court held that only the
reservations to Tribals fall within the sweep of Article 15 (4) and
not the persons, who had migrated to the islands and had 10 years
education. In the said case, reservations were carved out not only
for Tribals but also for others. But the Supreme Court made it so
specific in paragraph 5 of the judgment, which we feel apt to
extract:"We may make it clear, even at the outset, that the
'quotas' fixed in the various proceedings, except the quota fixed
for Tribals, do not fall under Article 15 (4) at all. The question
of validity of the quotas for the Central Government servants, the
pre-1942 and post 1942 settlers and the 10 year old is to be
considered on the basis of Article 14 and not under Article 15
(4)."
Devarakonda Rajesh Babu vs Nizam Institute Of Medical Sciences And ... on 21 October, 1997
The learned Additional Advocate General's reliance
on the Full Bench Judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
DEVARAKONDA RAJESH BABU v. NIZAM INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
(AIR 1998 A.P. 162), to which one of us (B. Subhashan Reddy, CJ)
was a party, cannot help him as the said judgment was rendered in
the context of special constitutional provision providing for area
reservation on the basis of backwardness of the region and it is so
clearly mentioned in REITA NIRANKARI V. UNIVERSITY OF DELHI (AIR
1984 S.C. 1569). We accordingly hold that there is absolutely no
constitutional protection for rural reservation under Article 15
(4) of Indian Constitution.