cites: 67307823

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

We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that this part of the judgment does not need to be revisited, and consequently, there is no need to refer Nagaraj [M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 1013] to a seven-Judge Bench.

Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 793 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta . on 26 September, 2018

144. The decision in Jarnail [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] specifically addressed the issue of creamy layer :

Supreme Court of India Cites 45 - Cited by 221 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 0 - Cited by 122106

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

In this view of the matter, we are clearly of the view that Jarnail [Jarnail Singh v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta, (2018) 10 SCC 396 : (2019) 1 SCC (L&S) 86] , on a construction of Indra Sawhney [Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1] holds that the creamy layer principle is a principle of equality.

Supreme Court of India Cites 136 - Cited by 1429 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Article 335 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 10 - Cited by 1598

Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]

Constitution Article Cites 12 - Cited by 38486

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

2001 SCC (L&S) 489] , Ajit Singh (2) [Ajit Singh (2) v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1239] and Virpal Singh [Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan, (1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1] remained applicable despite the Constitution (Eighty-fifth Amendment) Act, 2001.

Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 447 - B P Reddy - Full Document

THE CONSTITUTION (EIGHTY-FIFTH AMENDMENT) ACT, 2002

Constitution and Amendments Cites 0 - Cited by 145

B.K.Pavitra & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 February, 2017

The Reservation Act, 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by B.K. Pavitra (1) [B.K. Pavitra v. Union of India, (2017) 4 SCC 620 : (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 128] in respect of the Reservation Act, 2002. The Reservation Act, 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the State Legislature.

Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 85 - A K Goel - Full Document

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

The decision in Sabharwal [R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548] also noted that while candidates belonging to the general category are not entitled to fill reserved posts, reserved category candidates are entitled to compete for posts in the general category. In several Group D posts, such as municipal sweepers, the sobering experience of administration is that the overwhelmingly large segment of applicants consists of persons belonging to the SCs and STs. Over-representation in Group D posts as a result of candidates belonging to the general category staying away from those posts cannot be a valid or logical basis to deny promotion to Group D employees recruited from the reserved category.

Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 786 - K Singh - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results