07/11/SH NEWS
Flash message
Friday, January 31, 2020
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
MACP ON PROMITIONAL HIERARCHY
Case
No 21803/2014
Some of our friends are seems to be confused over the advance listing
of an MACP case, which had to be heard today. These cases are not related to
the main case of MACP i.e. M V Mohanan Nar V/s Union of India. The fact is that
some cases pertaining to CAG Employees’ was attached with the main case
of MACP. Since these cases are related to anomaly, the respondents
(CAG Employees) had urged the court to detach their case from the case of MACP.
Meanwhile Amicus Curiae, in his report, termed the CAG Employees' case as
separate from the MACP and recommended to hear separately. Considering this, the court had decided to
hear the CAG employees' case separately, even though it was not detached from
the main case, and ordered to list the case on 28th January. The argument on the MACP case was completed
on 23/01/2020. The delay in completion of argument of CAG employees’ case is
appeared to be delaying the final judgment of MACP case also. The
CAG employee’s case has to be listed today 2 PM; but it has not been listed. And
now it has come to know that the CAG Employees’ case is being detached from the
MACP case. If so the decision on MACP case may come within one week. Let us
wait.
Convener, Steering Committee
Monday, January 27, 2020
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Thursday, January 23, 2020
MACP ON PROMITIONAL
HIERARCHY
Case No 21803/2014
Updates of today's/Final hearing-
Advocate C K Sasi
(AOR), who was well briefed by us, argued the case for M V Mohanan Nair. Advocates, representing to other respondents also done commendable job. Actually it was a well organised team work. Amicus Curiae presented the case extremely well. He also submitted a written
statement of his arguments to the court. As a result, the court realized the following:
1)
There are
anomalies in MACP scheme as evident from Minutes of Meeting of Anomaly
Committee.
2)
These anomalies
are affecting Group B & C employees and no impact on Group A.
3)
These anomalies
have life long impact.
Arguments have been
completed and the case is now reserved for orders. We expect a judgment
allowing MACP on promotional hierarchy.
Thanks
for Steering Committee
MACP on Promotional
hierarchy
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Reservation In Promotion For Persons With Disability (PWDs) Not Prohibited: SC Upholds 2-Judge Bench Decision [Read Judgment] https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/reservation-in-promotion-for-pwd-not-prohibited-151853
The Supreme Court has observed that the rule of no reservation in promotions as laid down in Indra Sawhney has no application to Persons With Disability (PWD).
A three judge bench headed by Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman upheld a two judge bench view that the basis for providing reservation for PWD is physical disability and not any of the criteria forbidden under Article 16(1).
The bench, also comprising of Justices Aniruddha Bose and V. Ramasubramanian, was considering a reference which doubted a view taken in Rajiv Kumar Gupta & Others v. Union of India & Others – (2016) 6 SCALE 417. The bench in Rajiv Gupta, in the context of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 had noted that there is no prohibition against reservation in promotion for Persons With Disabilities. The bench in Rajiv Gupta said that the principle in Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India & Others – (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 215 against reservation in promotions will not extended to PWDs.
But this view was doubted by a division bench in 2017, observing that Persons With Disabilities required preferntial treatment but not reservation in promotion. On that premise, the bench referred the decision in Rajiv Kumar Gupta to larger bench.
Upholding the view in Rajiv Kumar Gupta, the bench held thus:
"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. 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 29.12.2 in particular."
In Rajeev Kumar Gupta, it was observed thus:
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. 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.
//copy//
MACP ON PROMITIONAL
HIERARCHY
Case No 21803/2014
Extract of the order
issued by the court on today’s hearing -
“We have heard the
arguments advanced by Mr. Vinay Kumar Garg, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondents in SLP(C)No(s).22181 of 2014, SLP(C)No(s).23335 of 2014
& SLP(C)No.23333 of 2014, in full. 6 We have also heard Mr. C.K. Sasi,
learned counsel appearing for the intervener(s) in SLP(C)No.21803 of 2014. We
have heard Ms. Prabha Swami, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in
SLP(C)NO.31125 of 2016 in part. For continuation of arguments, list the matters
tomorrow i.e. Thursday, 23rd January, 2020 at 02:00 p.m. as part-heard. Mr.
O.P. Bhadani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in
SLP(C)No(s).22181 of 2014, SLP(C)No(s).23335 of 2014 & SLP(C)No.23333 of
2014 is also permitted to file revised written submission in the above matters,
if he so desires.” धिनियमTuesday, January 21, 2020
Monday, January 20, 2020
Saturday, January 18, 2020
Thursday, January 16, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)