Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2007(2)BLJR1101; JT2007(5)SC276; (2007)2MLJ1211(SC); 2007(5)SCALE179; (2007)4SCC361
Arijit Pasayat, J.1. In this I.A. prayer has been made to grant interim protection pending final disposal of the writ petitions.2. In the writ petitions the policy of 27% reservation for the Other Backward Classes (in short the 'OBCs') contained in the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (in short the 'Act') is the subject matter of challenge. The primary ground of challenge is that the Union of India has failed in performing the constitutional and legal duties toward the citizenry and its resultant effect. Consequentially the Act shall have the effect and wide ramifications and ultimately it shall have the result in dividing the country on caste basis. It would lead to chaos, confusion, and anarchy which would have destructive impact on the peaceful atmosphere in the educational and other institutions and would seriously affect social and communal harmony. The constitutional guarantee of equality and equal opportunity shall be seriously prejudiced. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : 2009(4)KCCR3044
ORDERB.S. Patil, J.1. In this writ petition, the petitioner-student is challenging the communication dated 17.6.2009 issued by Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-A expressing regret that on close scrutiny of the OBC list issued by the Government of India, the caste of the petitioner does not appear in the list even though it is found in the State OBC list and, as such, her admission has been cancelled. Petitioner is informed to collect her original marks card along with the fees. Petitioner is also seeking a direction to Respondent No. 2 - The Coordinator of All India Institute of Speech & Hearing, to forward the OBC list to Respondent No. 4 the State of Karnataka. A further direction is sought to the State Government to forward this OBC list to the Central Government so as to enable the Central Government to include 'Kodeva' caste in the list of OBC of the central list. (This prayer is not clear. However, the petitioner's counsel submits that, in substance, this is the request of the peti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 163(2009)DLT557
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. In W.P. No. 1730/2001, two inquiry reports dated 29.06.1999 regarding the alleged sexual harassment at Delhi Public School, Faridabad (hereafter the 'School') issued by the National Commission for Women (first respondent, hereafter 'the Commission') are impugned. The petitioner is hereafter referred to as 'Verma'. One report, as received by him, is alleged to be of a three-member committee and the other, of a four-member committee, received by the DPS Society; both these committees were constituted on 25.05.1999. It is stated that both committees were constituted to look into the same allegations made by the common complainants (respondents No. 3 to 6, who are petitioners in W.P.-1731/2001 and referred to as 'the teachers') in complaints dated 09.04.1999. Both the reports are similar in content and their conclusions are based on evaluation of common facts and statements of the same witnesses. The complaints were made before the Chairman of the Delhi Public School...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. "Whether the Human Rights Commissions constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 have power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced propri vigore?" These writ petitions are all about this important question. 2. The occurrence which has given rise to these litigations happened on 15.03.2000 in the Police Battalion Ground at Trichy. During the relevant time, the petitioner in these writ petitions, an I.P.S. Officer, was working as Commandant, TSP Battalion No.1, Trichy. His wife, Dr.Beela Rajesh, an I.A.S. Officer, during the relevant period, was working as Sub Collector at Chengalpattu. On date of occurrence, his wife along with two other women police constables was waiting near the Shuttlecock Court in the Battalion Ground to play. At that time, two police constable by name Prabhu and Anbarasan attached to Armed Reserve came near them and eve teased the women. The Police Constables by name Nagarathinam, Krishnamurthy, Shankar and Dinesh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
1. "Whether the Human Rights Commissions constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 have power of adjudication in the sense of passing an order which can be enforced propri vigore?" These writ petitions are all about this important question. 2. The occurrence which has given rise to these litigations happened on 15.03.2000 in the Police Battalion Ground at Trichy. During the relevant time, the petitioner in these writ petitions, an I.P.S. Officer, was working as Commandant, TSP Battalion No.1, Trichy. His wife, Dr.Beela Rajesh, an I.A.S. Officer, during the relevant period, was working as Sub Collector at Chengalpattu. On date of occurrence, his wife along with two other women police constables was waiting near the Shuttlecock Court in the Battalion Ground to play. At that time, two police constable by name Prabhu and Anbarasan attached to Armed Reserve came near them and eve teased the women. The Police Constables by name Nagarathinam, Krishnamurthy, Shankar and Dinesh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
1. We have heard Sri Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned standing counsel appears for the State respondents and Sri B.D. Madhyan, Senior Advocate, along with Smt. Sunita Agarwal and Sri Satish Madhyan appear for Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur. Notices were directed to be issued to respondent No.4 - State backward Class Commission and respondent No.5 Dr. Devendra Patel. Office report dated 12.3.2010 indicates that notices were sent to respondent Nos. 4 and 5, on 2.2.2010; neither acknowledgement nor undelivered cover was received back. The service upon these respondents, under Chapter VIII Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court will be deemed to be sufficient. 2. The petitioner is a Professor in the Department of Sanskrit, Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the University). By this writ petition, he has challenged the order of the Executive Council of the University vide resolution dated 19.5.2009; the consequential order dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to two Office Memoranda, both dated 22.12.2011. There is also challenge to a Resolution dated 22.12.2011 which relates to one of the Office Memoranda. 2. The first Office Memorandum (for short the first OM) and the accompanying Resolution concern the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CEI Act'). The first OM and the Resolution carve out, with effect from 1.1.2012, a sub-quota of 4.5% for socially and educationally backward class of citizens belonging to minorities, for reservation in admission in some central educational institutions. The carving out is from the 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) who are entitled to reservation in admission to central educational institutions. In other words, OBCs having 27% reservation have been broken up into two segments: one segment of 22.5% reservation for O...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Madan B. Lokur, CJ. 1. The challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to two Office Memoranda, both dated 22.12.2011. There is also challenge to a Resolution dated 22.12.2011 which relates to one of the Office Memoranda. 2. The first Office Memorandum (for short the first OM) and the accompanying Resolution concern the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the CEI Act'). The first OM and the Resolution carve out, with effect from 1.1.2012, a sub-quota of 4.5% for socially and educationally backward class of citizens belonging to minorities, for reservation in admission in some central educational institutions. The carving out is from the 27% reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) who are entitled to reservation in admission to central educational institutions. In other words, OBCs having 27% reservation have been broken up into two segments: one segment of 22.5% reservation for OBCs and the second or balance segment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY PIL Nos.1 o28. 05-2012 R. Krishnaiah Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,General Administration Department, New Delhi & others. !Name of the petitioner ^Name of the respondent ?Cases referre2004. (5) ALT 63.2 (2008) 6 SC3. AIR 196.S4. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 32.5 AIR 197.SC 49.6 AIR 200.SC 16.7 (1974) 1 SCC 1.8 2010 (2) ALT 35.9 AIR 196.SC 194.10 AIR 199.SC 193.11 AIR 195.Keral12. AIR 195.SC 54.13 1995 (2) AL14. AIR 199.SC 47.15 See State of Assam v. Basanta Kumar Das, (1973) 1 SCC 46.and D.P. Das v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 11.ORDER: (Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Madan B. Lokur) The challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to two Office Memoranda, both dated 22.12.2011. There is also challenge to a Resolution dated 22.12.2011 which relates to one of the Office Memoranda.2. The first Office Memorandum (for short the first OM) and the accompanying Resolution concern the Central Educationa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR PIL Nos.22 o28. 05-2012 R. Krishnaiah Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, General Administration Department, New Delhi & others. ?Cases referre2004. (5) ALT 63.2 (2008) 6 SC3. AIR 196.S4. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 32.5 AIR 197.SC 49.6 AIR 200.SC 16.7 (1974) 1 SCC 1.8 2010 (2) ALT 35.9 AIR 196.SC 194.10 AIR 199.SC 193.11 AIR 195.Keral12. AIR 195.SC 54.13 1995 (2) AL14. AIR 199.SC 47.15 See State of Assam v. Basanta Kumar Das, (1973) 1 SCC 46.and D.P. Das v. Union of India, (2011) 8 SCC 11.ORDER: (Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Madan B. Lokur) The challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to two Office Memoranda, both dated 22.12.2011. There is also challenge to a Resolution dated 22.12.2011 which relates to one of the Office Memoranda.2. The first Office Memorandum (for short the first OM) and the accompanying Resolution concern the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation in Admission...
Tag this Judgment!