Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.27 seconds)
J.Duraisingam vs The State Of Tamil Nadu cites

Shiv Nath Prasad vs Saran Pal Jeet Singh Tulsi & Ors on 10 January, 2008

123. However, in this case, as stated above, the main issue concerns the “extent of reservation”. In this regard the State concerned will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.” The Constitution Bench judgment in Nagaraj case (supra) was subsequently followed in Shiv Nath Prasad vs. Saran Pal Jeet Singh Tulsi And Ors, (2008) 3 SCC 80; and Chairman And Managing Director, Central Bank of India And Ors. vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees' 9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7218 of 2015 Welfare Association And Ors., 2015 (1) SCALE 169.” In the light of the above dictums, the reasoning adopted by the respondents that the petitioner cannot compare himself to a SC employee, cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Chairman And Managing Director Central ... vs Central Bank Of India Sc/St Employees ... on 8 January, 2016

123. However, in this case, as stated above, the main issue concerns the “extent of reservation”. In this regard the State concerned will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.” The Constitution Bench judgment in Nagaraj case (supra) was subsequently followed in Shiv Nath Prasad vs. Saran Pal Jeet Singh Tulsi And Ors, (2008) 3 SCC 80; and Chairman And Managing Director, Central Bank of India And Ors. vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees' 9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7218 of 2015 Welfare Association And Ors., 2015 (1) SCALE 169.” In the light of the above dictums, the reasoning adopted by the respondents that the petitioner cannot compare himself to a SC employee, cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 45 - A K Sikri - Full Document

K.Rajalakhmi vs The Principal Secretary To The ... on 15 June, 2023

10. The last reason assigned in the impugned order is that the petitioner had suffered a punishment within a check period of five years. This reason also cannot be sustained since the check period of five years was introduced in G.O.Ms.No.22 Personal and Administrative Reforms Department dated 24.02.2014. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.Rajalakshmi Vs. The Principal Secretary to Government passed in W.A.No.983 of 2015, dated 14.09.2016, had quashed the G.O.Ms.No.22 Personal and Administrative Reforms Department dated 24.02.2014, insofar as it suggests the check period. The relevant portion of the order 13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7218 of 2015 reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - R S Kumar - Full Document

S.Panneer Selvam vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 16 December, 2015

5. Likewise in the case of S.Panneer Selvam and others Vs Government of Tamil Nadu & others reported in 2016 (4) CTC 189, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that the rule of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution is confined only to initial appointments and cannot extend to reservation in the matter of promotion. Such an observation was made in the following manner:
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 56 - D Hariparanthaman - Full Document

M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 19 October, 2006

123. However, in this case, as stated above, the main issue concerns the “extent of reservation”. In this regard the State concerned will have to show in each case the existence of the compelling reasons, namely, backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency before making provision for reservation. As stated above, the impugned provision is an enabling provision. The State is not bound to make reservation for SCs/STs in matters of promotions. However, if they wish to exercise their discretion and make such provision, the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the class and inadequacy of representation of that class in public employment in addition to compliance with Article 335. It is made clear that even if the State has compelling reasons, as stated above, the State will have to see that its reservation provision does not lead to excessiveness so as to breach the ceiling limit of 50% or obliterate the creamy layer or extend the reservation indefinitely.” The Constitution Bench judgment in Nagaraj case (supra) was subsequently followed in Shiv Nath Prasad vs. Saran Pal Jeet Singh Tulsi And Ors, (2008) 3 SCC 80; and Chairman And Managing Director, Central Bank of India And Ors. vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees' 9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.7218 of 2015 Welfare Association And Ors., 2015 (1) SCALE 169.” In the light of the above dictums, the reasoning adopted by the respondents that the petitioner cannot compare himself to a SC employee, cannot be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 793 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1