Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.40 seconds)
P Prema vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 4 October, 2019 cites

Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 8 January, 2010

According to the respondents, as per Central Civil Services Group 'C' and Group 'D' Rules, "Ex-servicemen who had put in not less than 6 months continuous service in the Armed Forces of the Union shall be allowed to deduct the period of such service from his actual age and if the resultant age does not exceed the maximum age-limit prescribed for the post or service for which he seeks appointment by more than three years, he shall be deemed to satisfy the condition regarding age-limit." So, according to the respondents, the Ex-servicemen are entitled to compete in the UR category as well as in the reservation category and accordingly, they have given appointment to Ex-servicemen who came up in merit under UR category and 3 posts 5 OA 1230/2012 were given for Ex-servicemen in horizontal reservation category. So, according to them, there is no arbitrariness or violation of principles of reservation as referred in this case. They mainly rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh and Anr. v. State of UP and Ors. (AIR 2010 SC 1851) and Ravinder Kumar v. State of Haryana & Others (2010 (5) SCC 136). The respondents 3-6,8-10 have also filed reply. It is submitted that the selection and appointment of these respondents are in terms the provision enumerated under Rule 5 of Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services & Posts) Rules 1979 which reads as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 368 - S S Nijjar - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Daria vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission & ... on 18 July, 2007

When the applicant had secured more marks than the Ex- servicemen she should have been appointed as Storekeeper. So, the reservation given is illegal and arbitrary." So, the contention raised in this case is slightly different and the only question raised in this OA is whether the Horizontal reservation given to the Ex-servicemen is correct or not. The principles laid down in Rajesh Kumar Daria's case was not considered in the earlier OAs disposed off by this Tribunal. This aspect was not considered on merit in the above cases. Further the applicant was not a party to any of those cases. On going through the pleadings and the judgments in OA 60/13, OA 1162/12, OA 1163/12 and OA 285/15, it can be seen that, the issue mainly considered is whether the Ex-servicemen can compete in the 12 OA 1230/2012 UR vacancies on merit and the said question was answered in favour of the respondents and OAs were dismissed. The principle of law regarding horizontal reservations as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria's case was not considered. So, those judgments have no relevance in this case. Further, the applicants in those cases had not impleaded this applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 495 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Public Service ... vs Mamta Bisht And Ors on 3 June, 2010

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the same dictum in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal's case also referred supra. So, according to him, there is nothing wrong in giving appointment to Ex-servicemen in the UR vacancies, but if the number of Ex-servicemen has already exceeded the quota, they cannot be again given reservation in the Horizontal reservation quota. This is not the case with respect to Vertical reservation. If the SC or BC candidates gets high mark, they can be accommodated in the UR category and it will not affect the quota reservation for those category. But in the case of Horizontal reservations i.e. special reservations within the UR category, the procedure is to first fill up the UR category on merit and then find out the number of candidates among them belongs to special category reservation. If the number of special reservation candidates in such list is equal to or more than the special reservation quota then there is no need for further selection towards special reservation quota. In this case, more than 3 persons had already come up in the merit list and there cannot be given reservation again to Ex- servicemen under the special reservation quota. So, the respondents had not properly implemented the Horizontal reservation quota in this case. The applicant belongs to OBC category and if we go through the category of respondents 8,9&10, it can be 10 OA 1230/2012 seen that respondents No.8 secured only 40.99% and R9 had secured 40.14% and R10 only 38.61%. Here respondents 8&10 are OBC candidates. The applicant in this case has secured more than the above marks i.e. she had obtained 41.51 marks in the selection process and she has got higher marks than respondents 8 to 10 who are also OBC candidates. Clearly the respondents ought not to have given appointment to respondents 8,9&10 which is against the principles of Horizontal reservation. There is no explanation offered by the respondents in this respect. It is true that the Ex-servicemen can compete both in the UR category and special reservation quota. They cannot be granted both the reservations together. If there is proper representation for Ex-servicemen in the UR category, the Horizontal reservation quota cannot be again utilised for appointing more Ex-servicemen.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 316 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1