Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)
Central Administrative Tribunal vs Uoi & Ors.) on 24 May, 2017 cites

Mohan Kumar Singhania And Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 September, 1991

In this context, counsel for private respondents while referring to the order of the Tribunal dated 08.05.2015 in OA No. 03/2011 (Man Mohan Usparia vs. UOI & Ors.), in which applicant no. 1 and applicant no. 4 in this OA (Sh. M.H. Farooqi and Shri Karim Baksh Gauri, respectively) were also two out of the three applicants in that OA, and specifically referred to para 13 and 16 of the order, which read as under: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 97 - S R Pandian - Full Document

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

13. With regard to the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants that the Railway Administration should have carried out the exercise as directed by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of M. Nagaraj and Others vs. Union of India and Others (supra) before making any promotion for reservation to S.C. employees and since they have not carried out such an exercise, therefore, the selection of 10 SC category candidates should be quashed and set aside, we are not convinced with the submissions of the learned counsel for the applicants under the facts and circumstances of the present OA. It is not disputed that 10 candidates of Scheduled Castes category have been selected on the post of Senior Goods Guard but the applicants have not made them party-respondents. Learned counsel for the applicants has made only Shri Ram Prakash B one of the candidates as party-respondent in the representative capacity. In our opinion, ten is not such a larger number that the applicants could not have made all of them as party respondents especially when they are all employees of the Railways and are working with the same Railways as the applicants. Therefore, in our opinion no adverse orders can be passed against the 10 Scheduled Castes selected candidates behind their back without giving them a chance of hearing. According to us, it will be against the principle of natural justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 793 - S H Kapadia - Full Document
1