Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.36 seconds)
Unknown vs Union Of India & Others on 19 October, 2012 cites

Salauddin Ahmed & Anr vs Samta Andolan on 29 August, 2012

(j) It was only in the course of the affidavit dated 31.8.2012 filed by the Home Secretary that an averment was made for the grant of 4 weeks time to enable the Chandigarh Administration to seek an appropriate judicial review of the order dated 13.3.2012. It was in appreciation thereof that we granted indulgence to the respondent to obtain appropriate orders in Judicial Review Challenge. It was ultimately on 26.9.2012 that the learned Standing Counsel indicated that, the respondent (Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh) have presently deferred the idea of obtaining a clarification either from this Tribunal or from the High Court, in view of the observations which have come to be granted, in the meantime, by the Honble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 2504-2505 of 2012  Salauddin Ahmed & Anr. Vs. Santa Andolan on 29.8.2012.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 16 - A Kabir - Full Document

Suraj Bhan Meena & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 7 December, 2010

38.When the principles laid down in the case of M. Nagaraj (supra) and Suraj Bhan Meena (supra) are applied to the notifications impugned in the present proceedings, namely, 11.7.2002, 31.1.2005 (R-1 and R-2) and further notification dated 21.1.2009 and 10.8.2010, it becomes clear that no survey has been undertaken to find out inadequacy of representation in respect of members of the SC/ST in the services. The aforesaid fact has been candidly admitted in the written statement filed by respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The aforesaid fact has also been conceded by the respondent-Union of India in the communication dated 15.9.2010. In para (iv) of the aforesaid communication it has been stated that no exercise was carried out to assess the inadequacy of representation of SC/STs in the services under the Government of India before issue of instructions dated 31.2.2005. The aforementioned communication has been placed on record along with CM No. 14865 of 2010. In the absence of any survey with regard to inadequacy as also concerning the overall requirement of efficiency of the administration where reservation is to be made along with backwardness of the class for whom the reservation is required, it is not possible to sustain these notifications. Accordingly, it has to be held that these notifications suffer from violation of the provisions of Articles 16 (4A), 16(4B) read with Article 335 of the Constitution as interpreted by the Constitution Bench in M. Nagarajs case (supra) as well as in Suraj Bhan Meenas case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 114 - A Kabir - Full Document

Rajnish Shukla vs The Union Of India &Amp; Ors on 3 December, 2010

16.In resistance, the learned counsel representing the respondent (Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh) asserted that the Union Territory Administration is bound by the instructions issued by the Government of India which (Govt. of India) has already affixed the percentage of reservation in government posts for the SC/ST category based on available facts and circumstances. The plea raised thereby is that the amendment by the Union Territory Administration being based upon the Government of India instructions, cannot be invalidated. (Therefore, the competent authority/rule making authority for the Respondent  Administration in this regard is the Govt. of India which has already, based on available data and circumstances, fixed the extent of reservation to be provided to the Scheduled Castes in U.T. Chandigarh. The 85th Constitution Amendment would thus automatically apply as it is a conscious decision of the Parliament of India to amend the Constitution of India and provide consequential benefits of promotion (including seniority to the SCs/STs candidates). As such, the claim of the applicant that there has to be separate or a reassessment of the condition of persons belonging to these reserved categories by the State (in the case respondent-Administration) would not be applicable in the instant case.)extraction from the pleadings in OA No. 308/CH/10 (Rajesh Shukla & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors.) which, along with the OAs.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1