Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.30 seconds)
Sachin Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 March, 2023 cites

Gaurav Pratap Yadav And 4 Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 17 March, 2020

Infact, the ratio of the judgment in W.A. No. 420/2017 only deals with horizontal reservation overlooking the aspect of vertical reservation whereas facts of the present case are that upon achieving the vertical reservation and its completion, candidates who found place in the list of unreserved category were Signature Not Verified SAN placed horizontally under the various categories for which horizontal reservation Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 2023.03.23 18:10:18 IST is meant like woman, ex-armyman, differently abled persons etc. There is no 5 illegality in the impugned action of the respondents calling for interference especially in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 73 - Full Document

Surendra Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 30 November, 2017

Answering this, the Hon'ble Division Bench refers to another Division Bench decision in W.A. No. 414/2017 Surendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others and W.A. No. 940/2017 Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Nabhi Kishore Choudhary and others wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench has upheld the view of the Single Judge that when a reservation is horizontal, then the candidate selected on the basis of reservation in any category has to be fixed in the said category and cannot be allowed to migrate to other category. The concept of migrating from one category to another on the basis of merit may hold good in vertical reservation but in Signature Not Verified horizontal reservation, the same is not applicable.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Chairman Public Service vs Dr. Sanjeev Khemaria on 12 January, 2018

Shri Mahendra Pateriya places reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Chairman, Public Service Commission and another Vs. Dr. Sanjeev Khemariya and others decided on 12/01/2018 W.A. No. 420/2017 wherein the issue raised was that when a candidate opts to take a competitive examination not as a general category/unreserved category but as a reserved category candidate belonging to SC/ST/OBC, as the case may be, thus, competing amongst the candidates of his/her category, if obtained marks higher than obtained by the candidates of a general category can be permitted to include in the unreserved category, in other words, whether a candidate having opted to participate in a competitive examination as a reserved category candidate can be permitted to migrate to the unreserved category.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1