Please say anybody : I am disabled person and working as Group C post in tamilnadu state government, On Jan 2017 I gave letter to promotion attached with Disability acts-2016, supreme court judgments and G.Os but they asking reference to already got promotion by Disabled persons but i have no reference. Please anybody have citation/reference/proofs above said problem send me.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 11:33 AM vishal sharma <sharma1010vis...@gmail.com> wrote: > can anyone summarise the judgement ,please! > > On 1/21/20, Prasanna Kumar Pincha <prasannapin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: Prasanna Pincha <prasannapin...@gmail.com> > >> Date: 20 January 2020 at 2:29:02 PM GMT-5 > >> To: "AccessIndia: a list for discussing accessibility and issues > >> concerning the disabled." <accessindia@accessindia.org.in> > >> Subject: Judgment on reservation in promotion > >> > >> > >> Dear friends! > >> > >> Warm greetings from New York. > >> > >> I am pasting at the bottom of this letter recent supreme court judgment > in > >> word format dated 14th January, 2020 pronounced by the Hon’ble supreme > >> court of India in Sidaraju Vs. the State of Karnataka which is > >> self-explanatory. > >> > >> Kudos to the learned counsel Mr. Rajan Mani and also to the learned > >> counsel of Mr. Sidaraju and to others, if any, who have played a genuine > >> role in obtaining such a landmark judgment of the Hon’ble supreme court. > >> > >> You may recall in this context that I had mentioned about this judgment > >> just two three days back in one of my posts on this list. > >> > >> With warm regards, > >> > >> Prasanna Kumar Pincha. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> REPORTABLE > >> IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL > >> NO. 1567 OF 2017 > >> > >> Appellant(s) > >> > >> VERSUS > >> > >> STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. > >> > >> WITH > >> > >> REVIEW PETITION (C) NO. 36 OF 2017 > >> IN > >> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5389 OF 2016 > >> > >> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2020 > >> (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11632 of 2017) > >> > >> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 299 2020 > >> (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21197 of 2017) > >> > >> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 310 2020 > >> (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4650 of 2019) > >> > >> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6092 OF 2019 > >> > >> CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6095 OF 2019 > >> > >> > >> > >> J U D G M E N T > >> "Delay condoned. Leave granted. > >> Question which has arisen in this case is whether persons, governed > under > >> "The persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of > Rights > >> and Full Participation) Act, 1995", can be given reservation in > promotion. > >> A view has been taken by this Court in Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Others v. > Union > >> of India & Others - (2016) 6 SCALE 417 in the affirmative. > >> > >> Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, points out that the > >> prohibition against reservation in promotion laid down by the majority > in > >> Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others - (1992) Supp. 3 SCC > 215 > >> applies not only to Article 16(4) but also 16(1) of the Constitution of > >> India and inference to the contrary is not justified. > >> > >> Persons suffering from disability certainly require preferential > treatment > >> and such preferential treatment may also cover reservation in > appointment > >> but not reservation in promotion. Section 33 of the 1995 Act is required > >> to be read and construed in that background. > >> > >> We find merit in the contention that the matter needs to be considered > by > >> the larger Bench. > >> > >> Accordingly, we direct the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief > >> Justice for appropriate orders. > >> > >> Union of India is at liberty to file its affidavit within one week from > >> today." > >> > >> 2) Parliament passed the Persons with Disabilities (Equal > >> Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 > >> being Act 1 of 1996. The statement of objects and reasons for the said > Act > >> states that a Conference held at Beijing, China, in December, 1992 had > >> adopted the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of > People > >> with Disabilities in the Asia and the Pacific region India being a > >> signatory to the said proclamation found it > >> necessary to enact a suitable legislation to provide for the special > care > >> that is necessary to remove discrimination against persons with > >> disabilities and to make special provision for the integration of such > >> persons into the social mainstream. > >> 3) Section 2(i) of the said Act defines "disability" as follows:- > >> > >> "(i) "disability" means- > >> > >> (i) blindness; > >> (ii) low vision; > >> (iii) leprosy-cured; > >> (iv) hearing impairment; > >> (v) locomotor disability; > >> (vi) mental retardation; > >> (viii) mental illness;" > >> > >> Section 2(t) defines "person with disability" as follows:- > >> > >> "(t) "person with disability" means a person suffering from not less > than > >> forty per cent of any disability as certified by a medical authority;" > >> 4) The Act then provides for Central and State Coordination > >> Committees and prevention and early detection of disabilities. We are > >> directly concerned with Chapter VI of the Act which deals with > >> identification and reservation of posts for the purpose of employment. > >> These Sections state as follows:- > >> "32. Identification of posts which can be reserved for persons with > >> disabilities.- Appropriate Governments shall- > >> > >> (a) identify posts, in the establishments, which can be reserved for > the > >> persons with disability; > >> > >> (b) at periodical intervals not exceeding three years, review the list > >> of posts identified and > >> up- date the list taking into consideration the developments in > >> technology. > >> > >> 33. Reservation of posts.- Every appropriate Government shall appoint in > >> every establishment such percentage of vacancies not less than three per > >> cent for persons or class of persons with disability of which one per > cent > >> each shall he reserved for persons suffering from- > >> > >> (i) blindness or low vision; > >> (ii) hearing impairment; > >> (iii) locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, > >> > >> in the posts identified for each disability: > >> > >> Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type > of > >> work carried on in any department or establishment, by notification > >> subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such > >> notification, exempt any establishment from the provisions of this > >> section." > >> > >> 5) In Union of India and Another vs. National Federation of the > Blind > >> and Others, (2013) 10 SCC 772, this Court went into the provisions of > the > >> aforesaid Act in some detail and, in particular, Sections 32 and 33. The > >> Court considered Office Memorandum dated 29.12.2005 of the Government of > >> India, which stated that the quantum of reservation would be as > follows:- > >> > >> "2. QUANTUM OF RESERVATION > >> > >> (i) Three percent of the vacancies in case of direct recruitment to > >> Group A, B, C and D posts shall be reserved for persons with > disabilities > >> of which one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from > >> (i) blindness or low vision, (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor > >> disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each > disability; > >> > >> (ii) Three percent of the vacancies in case of promotion to Group D, > >> and Group C posts in which the element of direct recruitment, if any, > does > >> not exceed 75%, shall be reserved for persons with disabilities of which > >> one per cent each shall be reserved for persons suffering from (i) > >> blindness or low vision, (ii) hearing impairment and (iii) locomotor > >> disability or cerebral palsy in the posts identified for each > disability. > >> > >> The Court then held as follows: > >> > >> "39) It has also been submitted on behalf of the appellants herein that > >> since reservation of persons with disabilities in Group C and D has been > >> in force prior to the enactment and is being made against the total > number > >> of vacancies in the cadre strength according to the OM dated > >> 29.12.2005 but the actual import of Section 33 is that it has to be > >> computed against identified posts only. This argument is also completely > >> misconceived in view of the plain language of the said Section, as > >> deliberated above. Even for the sake of argument, if we accept that the > >> computation of reservation in respect of Group C and D posts is against > >> the total vacancies in the cadre strength because of the applicability > of > >> the scheme of reservation in Group C and D posts prior to enactment, > >> Section 33 does not distinguish the manner of computation of reservation > >> between Group A and B posts or Group C and D posts respectively. As > such, > >> one statutory provision cannot be interpreted and applied differently > for > >> the same subject-matter. > >> > >> 40) Further, if we accept the interpretation contended by the appellants > >> that computation of reservation has to be against the identified posts > >> only, it would result into uncertainty of the application of the scheme > of > >> reservation because experience has shown that identification has never > >> been uniform between the Centre and the States and even between the > >> Departments of any Government. For example, while a post of middle > school > >> teacher has been notified as identified as suitable for the blind and > low > >> vision by the Central Government, it has not been identified as suitable > >> for the blind and low vision in some States such as Gujarat and J&K, > etc. > >> This has led to a series of litigations which have been pending in > various > >> High Courts. In addition, Para 4 of the OM dated > >> 29.12.2005 dealing with the issue of > >> identification of jobs/posts in sub clause (b) states that list of the > >> jobs/posts notified by the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment is > not > >> exhaustive which further makes the computation of reservation uncertain > >> and arbitrary in the event of acceptance of the contention raised by the > >> appellants. > >> > >> 42) A perusal of Indra Sawhney would reveal that the ceiling of 50% > >> reservation applies only to reservation in favour of other Backward > >> classes under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India whereas the > >> reservation in favour of persons with disabilities is horizontal, which > is > >> under Article 16(1) of the Constitution. In fact, this Court in the said > >> pronouncement has used the example of 3% reservation in favour of > persons > >> with disabilities while dealing with the rule of 50% ceiling. Para 812 > of > >> the judgment clearly brings out that after selection and appointment of > >> candidates under reservation for persons with disabilities they will be > >> placed in the respective rosters of reserved category or open category > >> respectively on the basis of the category to which they belong and, > thus, > >> the reservation for persons with disabilities per se has nothing to do > >> with the ceiling of 50%. Para 812 is reproduced as follows:- > >> > >> "812............. all reservations are not of the same > >> nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of > >> convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal > >> reservations'. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, the > >> Scheduled Tribes and the other backward classes [under Article 16(4)] > may > >> be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of > >> physically handicapped [under Clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred > to > >> as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the > >> vertical reservations - what is called inter-locking reservations. To be > >> more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of > >> physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to > >> Clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will > be > >> placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to S.C. category he > will > >> be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if > he > >> belongs to open competition (O.C.) category, he will be placed in that > >> category by making necessary > >> adjustments. Even after providing > >> for these > >> horizontal reservations, the > >> percentage of > >> reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains - and > should > >> remain - the same " > >> > >> Having concluded thus, the Court then held: > >> > >> "50) Employment is a key factor in the empowerment and inclusion of > people > >> with disabilities. It is an alarming reality that the disabled people > are > >> out of job not because their disability comes in the way of their > >> functioning rather it is social and practical barriers that prevent them > >> from joining the workforce. As a result, many disabled people live in > >> poverty and in deplorable conditions. They are denied the right to make > a > >> useful contribution to their own lives and to the lives of their > families > >> and community. > >> > >> 51) The Union of India, the State Governments as well as the Union > >> Territories have a categorical obligation under the Constitution of > India > >> and under various International treaties relating to human rights in > >> general and treaties for disabled persons in particular, to protect the > >> rights of disabled persons. Even though the Act was enacted way back in > >> 1995, the disabled people have failed to get required benefit until > today. > >> > >> 52) Thus, after thoughtful consideration, we are > >> of the view that the computation of reservation for persons with > >> disabilities has to be computed in case of Group A, B, C and D posts in > an > >> identical manner viz., "computing 3% reservation on total number of > >> vacancies in the cadre strength" which is the intention of the > >> legislature. Accordingly, certain clauses in the OM dated 29.12.2005, > >> which are contrary to the above reasoning are struck down and we direct > >> the appropriate Government to issue new Office > >> Memorandum(s) consistent with the decision rendered by this Court. > >> > >> 53) Further, the reservation for persons with disabilities has > nothing > >> to do with the ceiling of 50% and hence, Indra Sawhney is not applicable > >> with respect to the disabled persons." > >> > >> 6) Certain directions were then made in the end of the > >> > >> judgment to ensure proper implementation of the reservation > >> policy for the disabled and to protect their rights. > >> 7) We may mention that, pursuant to this Court's judgment, > >> the Union of India issued Office Memorandum dated 03.12.2013 > >> in which it made only one change in the Office Memorandum > >> dated 29.12.2015 as follows:- > >> "5. Keeping in view the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Para 14 > >> of the OM dated 29.12.2005 is modified to the following extent: > >> > >> "Reservation for persons with disabilities in Group 'A' or Group 'B' > posts > >> shall be computed on the basis of total number of vacancies occurring in > >> direct recruitment quota in all the Group 'A' posts or Group 'B' posts > >> respectively, in the cadre." > >> > >> Contempt petitions were filed stating that the directions contained in > >> this judgment have not been carried out, which is not the subject-matter > >> before us. These petitions have been ordered to be listed after the > >> decision in these cases. > >> 8) The next important judgment that needs to be adverted > >> to in this behalf is the judgment in National Federation of > >> the Blind vs. Sanjay_Kothari,_Secy._Deptt._of_Persgnnel_and_ > >> Training, 2015 (9) Scale 611, in para 10 of which para 51 of > >> the earlier judgment was clarified as follows:- > >> "10. Para 51 of the order on which reliance has been placed by Shri > Rungta > >> must be viewed in the context of the questions arising for answer before > >> the Court i.e. the manner of computation of vacancies in case of Groups > A, > >> B, C and D posts. > >> All that the Court in the aforesaid paragraph 51 has held is that the > >> manner of such identification must be uniform in the case of all the > >> groups viz. > >> A, B, C and D. Nothing beyond the above should be read in paragraph 51 > of > >> the Courts' order as aforesaid." > >> 9) We now come to the Division Bench judgment of this Court > reported > >> as Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others - (2016) 13 > SCC > >> 153. In this judgment, the posts in Prasar Bharati were classified into > >> four Groups-A to D. The precise question that arose before the Court is > >> set out in para 5 thereof in which it is stated that the statutory > benefit > >> of 3 per cent reservation in favour of those who are disabled is denied > >> insofar as identified posts in Groups A and B are concerned, since these > >> posts are to be filled through direct recruitment. After noticing the > >> arguments based on the nine-Judge bench in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of > >> India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, this Court held: > >> > >> "14. We now examine the applicability of the prohibition on reservation > in > >> promotions as propounded by Indra Sawhney. Prior to Indra Sawhney, > >> reservation in promotions were permitted under law as interpreted by > this > >> Court in Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36. Indra Sawhney > >> specifically overruled Rangachari to the extent that reservations in > >> promotions were held in Rangachari to be permitted under Article 16(4) > of > >> the Constitution. Indra Sawhney specifically addressed the question > >> whether reservations could be permitted in matters of promotion under > >> Article 16(4). The majority held that reservations in promotion are not > >> permitted under our constitutional scheme. > >> > >> 15. The respondent argued that the answer to Que- tion 7 in Indra > >> Sawhney squarely covers the situation on hand and the reasons outlined > by > >> the majority opinion in Indra Sawhney at para 828 must also apply to bar > >> reservation in promotions to identified posts of Group A and Group B. > >> > >> 16. We do not agree with the respondent's submission. Indra Sawhney > >> ruling arose in the context of reservations in favour of backward > >> classes of citizens falling within the sweep of Article 16(4). > >> > >> xxx xxx > >> > >> 21. The principle laid down in Indra Sawhney is applicable only when the > >> State seeks to give preferential treatment in the matter of employment > >> under the State to certain classes of citizens identified to be a > backward > >> class. Article 16(4) does not disable the State from providing > >> differential treatment (reservations) to other classes of citizens under > >> Article 16(1) if they otherwise deserve such treatment. However, for > >> creating such preferential treatment under law, consistent with the > >> mandate of Article 16(1), the State cannot choose any one of the factors > >> such as caste, religion, etc. mentioned in Article 16(1) as the basis. > The > >> basis for providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not > any > >> of the criteria forbidden under Article 16(1). Therefore, the rule of no > >> reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra Sawhney has clearly and > >> normatively no application to PWD. > >> > >> The Court then concluded: > >> > >> 24. A combined reading of Sections 32 and 33 of > >> the 1995 Act explicates a fine and designed balance between requirements > >> of administration and the imperative to provide greater opportunities to > >> PWD. Therefore, as detailed in the first part of our analysis, the > >> identification exercise under Section 32 is crucial. Once a post is > >> identified, it means that > >> a PWD is fully capable of > >> discharging the functions associated with the identified post. Once > found > >> to be so capable, reservation under Section 33 to an extent of not less > >> than three per cent must follow. Once the post is identified, it must be > >> reserved for PWD irrespective of the mode of recruitment adopted by the > >> State for filling up of the said post. > >> > >> 25. In light of the preceding analysis, we declare the impugned > >> memoranda as illegal and inconsistent with the 1995 Act. We further > direct > >> the Government to extend three percent reservation to PWD in all > >> identified posts in Group A and Group B, irrespective of the mode of > >> filling up of such posts. This writ petition is accordingly allowed." > >> 10) After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the > >> parties including the learned Additional Solicitor General, we are of > the > >> view that the judgment of this Court cannot be faulted when it stated > that > >> Indra Sawhney dealt with a different problem and, therefore, cannot be > >> followed. > >> > >> 11) We may also note that review > >> petitions were filed and > >> have since been dismissed > >> against both the 2013 and 2016 > >> judgments. Consequently, the reference stands answered by stating that > the > >> 2013 judgment as clarified in National Federation of the Blind vs. > Sanjay > >> Kothari, Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and Training, 2015 (9) Scale 611 and > >> the judgment in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others - > >> (2016) 13 SCC 153 case will bind the Union and the State Governments and > >> must be strictly followed notwithstanding the Office Memorandum dated > >> 29.12.2005, in particular. Since the > >> reference has been disposed of by us today, > >> contempt petitions be listed for hearing. > >> Civil Appeal No. 1567 OF 2017: > >> 12) Application for impleadment > >> in C.A. 1567/2017 is > >> allowed. > >> 13) This matter arises out of the order of the Central Administrative > >> Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore dated 24.07.2015 in which the 2005 > >> O.M has been followed without reference to any of the judgments of this > >> Court. A writ petition from the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by the > >> Karnataka High Court on 23.03.2016, stating that the precise > >> question of law that arises in this case was kept open. Accordingly, we > >> set aside the judgment of the CAT and consequently that of the High > Court. > >> The case is to be governed by the three decisions of this Court outlined > >> above, which judgments have to be followed by the Union of India and the > >> States. It is not necessary to pass any further directions. The appeal > is > >> disposed of accordingly. > >> > >> Review Petition (C) No. 36 OF 2017 in Civil Appeal No. 5389 of 2016: > >> 14) Delay is condoned. > >> 15) This matter stands dismissed in view of today's judgment. > >> > >> SLP (C) No. 11632 of 2017: > >> 16) Leave granted. > >> 17) The impugned judgment of the High Court dated > >> 22.06.2016 in this appeal, after referring to the judgment > >> of this Court in National Federation of the Blind vs. > >> Sanjay Kothari, Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and Training, 2015 > >> (9) Scale 611 arrived at the following conclusion: > >> "8. The contention of the learned Attorney General was that except for > >> sub-section 2 of Section 47, there was no other provision under the > >> Disabilities Act dealing with the promotions and, therefore, on the > >> strength of sub-section 2 of Section 47 of the Disabilities Act, it > cannot > >> be contended that the Act provides for reservation in the matter of > >> promotion. In paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment and order dated 1st > >> September, > >> 2015, the Apex Court has dealt with issue of reservation in promotion. > In > >> paragraph 10 of the judgment and order dated 1st September, > >> 2015, the Apex Court has explained paragraph 51 of the earlier judgment > >> and order dated 8th October, 2013 by observing that what is observed in > >> paragraph 51 is about the manner of computation of vacancies in case of > >> all the Groups viz. A, B, C and D posts. That is the reason why the Apex > >> Court declined to initiate any action for contempt on the basis of > >> allegations that there is no provision made for the reservation of > persons > >> with disabilities in promotion. In terms the Apex Court observed that > what > >> is held in paragraph 51 of the judgment and order dated 8th October, > 2013 > >> cannot be construed to mean that there is a direction issued to provide > >> for the reservation for the persons with disabilities even in the > >> promotional posts. > >> > >> 9. In view of the clarification issued by the Apex Court under the order > >> dated 1st September, 2015 in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 499 of 2014, > >> now the directions contained in paragraph 13 of the judgment and order > >> dated 4th December, 2013 cannot be implemented insofar as the same deal > >> with giving benefit of reservation to the persons with disabilities in > the > >> matter of promotion to the posts in the Indian Administrative Service by > >> applying the Office Memorandum dated 29th December, 2005." > >> Consequently, the High Court held that no action can be initiated in the > >> contempt petition on the ground that reservation had not been provided > in > >> the matter of promotion. We may hasten to add that this is not a correct > >> reading of the law laid down by this Court. National Federation of the > >> Blind vs. Sanjay Kothari, Secy. Deptt. of Personnel and Training, 2015 > (9) > >> Scale 611 was a judgment in a contempt petition in which the contention > >> taken up by the petitioner was repelled by stating that para 51 of the > >> 2013 judgment has held that the manner of identification of posts of all > >> groups must be uniform and nothing beyond. After the > >> declaration of the law in Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India > & > >> Others - (2016) 13 SCC 153 it is now clear beyond doubt that the O.M. of > >> 2005 cannot be given effect to when it is in the teeth of the 2016 > >> judgment. On the basis of this judgment, the impugned judgment is set > >> aside and the contempt petition is restored to the file. The petition be > >> disposed of on merits.The appeal is disposed of accordingly. > >> > >> SLP (C) No. 21197 of 2017: > >> 18) Leave granted. > >> 19) In view of our judgment today, the appeal is dismissed. > >> > >> SLP (C) No. 4650 of 2019: > >> 20) Leave granted. > >> 21) Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellant > >> at some length, we may note that paragraph 4(C) of the > >> counter affidavit states as follows: > >> "(C) That Chhattisgarh State Power Holding Company Ltd. has appointed a > >> committee for identification of the post upon which reservation in > >> promotion will be applicable. The said Committee in its meeting held on > >> 10.01.2017 decided that the post of Executive Engineer, Mechanical and > >> Electrical in transmission, distribution and generation companies where > >> the Executive Engineer has to visit sites and perform various acts > >> personally, it is not advisable to keep such post under reservation. > >> However, reservation will be applicable in promotion to the post of > >> Executive Engineer, Computer Science, Information & Technology and Civil > >> Engineering. The said decision of the company has not been challenged > till > >> date and thus binding on all the employees as per the provisions of > Rights > >> of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. On this ground also the Special > >> Leave Petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable." > >> 22) It is clear that the Internal Committee of respondent No. 2 has > >> applied its mind to the post of Executive Engineer, Mechanical and > >> Electrical, and has opined that in the said post, reservation for the > >> physically disabled will not be possible for the reason given therein. > >> 23) > >> Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant > has > >> pointed out that as per the Gazette Notification dated 31.05.2001, it is > >> an Expert Committee that has to identify, keeping in view the provisions > >> of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of > >> Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, and Section 32 in particular, > >> suitable posts for persons with > >> disabilities, and this has not been done in the present case. Since this > >> point has not been argued in any of the cross appeals, we reserve > liberty > >> to the appellant to challenge the Internal Committee's findings on > grounds > >> available to them in law. Apart from this, the impugned judgment does > not > >> call for interference. The appeal is > >> disposed of accordingly. > >> 24) Needless to add if such a challenge succeeds, the three judgments > >> pointed out by us in the Judgment in the lead matter, i.e., Civil Appeal > >> No. 1567 of 2017 will have to be applied and followed. > >> > >> Civil Appeal No. 6092 of 2019: > >> 25) The appeal is dismissed in accordance with today's judgment. > >> Interim order dated 08.07.2019 stands vacated. > >> It has been contended before us that there are only 2 Group 'A' posts > >> available/identified as a result of which the reservation will have to > be > >> worked in accordance with the roster system. We may only clarify that we > >> have not, in any manner, indicated as to how such system should be > worked. > >> > >> Civil Appeal No. 6095 of 2019: > >> > >> 26) The appeal is dismissed in view of today's judgment. > >> > >> ............................................................ J. > >> (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) > >> > >> J. > >> (ANIRUDDHA BOSE) > >> > >> J. > >> (V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN) > >> > >> New Delhi; > >> January 14-15, 2020. > >> > > > > > > > > Search for old postings at: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ > > > > To unsubscribe send a message to > > accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in > > with the subject unsubscribe. > > > > To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, > please > > visit the list home page at > > > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > > > > Disclaimer: > > 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of > the > > person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; > > > > 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the > mails > > sent through this mailing list.. > > > > > > > > > Search for old postings at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ > > To unsubscribe send a message to > accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in > with the subject unsubscribe. > > To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, > please visit the list home page at > http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in > > > Disclaimer: > 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of > the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; > > 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails > sent through this mailing list.. > > -- * ___* *C.Kasimani* M.A., M.L.I.S., M.Phil., Ph.D, PGDCA., NET., SET Librarian and Information Asst, Anna Centenary Library, Gandhimandabam Road, Kotturpuram, Chennai-600085. Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list..
