Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.28 seconds)Article 15 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs P.B. Vijayakumar & Anr on 12 May, 1995
In my opinion, judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.B. Vijaykumar (supra) has to be read in reference to Rule 22A of the Rules referred therein. It was not to provide reservation to women, but preference to the extent of 30% posts. It was held that every thing being equal, preference can be given to the women. In that event, it would not violate Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India, rather saved by Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India. It can be thus safely held that so far as earmarking certain posts for women are concerned, it can be saved by Article 15(3), if considered special provision for women and not by reservation. In the instant case, 30% posts have been reserved for women, but to simplify the issue, it can be construed to be a special provision for women to earmark 30% posts for them. By giving aforesaid interpretation, obvious violation of Article 16(2) would be avoided to save provision for keeping 30% posts for women under Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India without holding it to be reservation. Keeping 30% posts for women may result and be loudly construed to be reservation, but argument aforesaid can be nullified by holding that for 30% posts for women by special provision, principle as applicable to the reservation would not be applicable.
Article 29 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rajesh Kumar Daria vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission & ... on 18 July, 2007
It is further submitted that none of the judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioners address the issue raised in these petitions, rather issue has been raised for the first time as to whether migration of reserve caste woman candidates would be permissible to open/general women category quota based on higher marks. The learned AAG has referred various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court to support his arguments. First judgment referred is in the case of Indra Sawhney etc. etc Vs. Union of India and others, etc. etc., reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217. In the aforesaid judgment, difference was indicated between social reservation and special reservation. First reservation is vertical and other to be horizontal. Further reference of following judgments has been given in the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.B. Vijaykumar and another, reported in 1995 (4) SCC 520, Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 1995 (5) SCC 173, Union of India (UOI) and Anr. Vs. Satya Prakash and Ors., reported in 2006 (4) SCC 550, Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors., reported in 2007 (8) SCC 785, Union of India Vs. Ramesh Ram & others, reported in 2010 (7) SCC 234, Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Bisht and Ors., reported in 2010 (12) SCC 204 and Sheikh Mohd. Afzal & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 186.
Public Service ... vs Mamta Bisht And Ors on 3 June, 2010
It is further submitted that none of the judgments cited by learned counsel for petitioners address the issue raised in these petitions, rather issue has been raised for the first time as to whether migration of reserve caste woman candidates would be permissible to open/general women category quota based on higher marks. The learned AAG has referred various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court to support his arguments. First judgment referred is in the case of Indra Sawhney etc. etc Vs. Union of India and others, etc. etc., reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217. In the aforesaid judgment, difference was indicated between social reservation and special reservation. First reservation is vertical and other to be horizontal. Further reference of following judgments has been given in the case of Govt. of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.B. Vijaykumar and another, reported in 1995 (4) SCC 520, Anil Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors., reported in 1995 (5) SCC 173, Union of India (UOI) and Anr. Vs. Satya Prakash and Ors., reported in 2006 (4) SCC 550, Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors., reported in 2007 (8) SCC 785, Union of India Vs. Ramesh Ram & others, reported in 2010 (7) SCC 234, Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamta Bisht and Ors., reported in 2010 (12) SCC 204 and Sheikh Mohd. Afzal & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in 2008 (1) WLC (Raj.) 186.
Article 30 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Laxmi Kunwar vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 December, 1992
To address the aforesaid issue and for convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11119/2012 (Laxmi Kanwar & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors), are taken.
THE CONSTITUTION (FIRST AMENDMENT) ACT, 1951
Anil Kumar Gupta, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 28 July, 1995
Learned Counsel have given reference of judgment in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P., reported in (1995) 5 SCC 173. In the aforesaid judgment, inter changeability of category in horizontal reservation is not allowed.