Full Text
Translation output
$-23 & 25 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 12035/2018
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC for UOI.
W.P.(C) 12035/2018
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC for UOI.
VERSUS
RAJ KUMAR AND ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
W.P.(C) 12039/2018
^ UNION OF INDIA &ANR Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC for UOI.
^ UNION OF INDIA &ANR Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC for UOI.
VERSUS
SHAMBHU NATH JASRA & ORS Respondents
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
Through: Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
CORAM: ^
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
12.n.2018 CM APPL. 46592-93/2018 in W.P.(C) 12035/2018
CM APPL. 46608-09/2018 in W.P.(C) 12039/2018 Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications stand disposed of
W.P.rC) 12035/2018 with CM APPL. 46591/2018 (for stay)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA
12.n.2018 CM APPL. 46592-93/2018 in W.P.(C) 12035/2018
CM APPL. 46608-09/2018 in W.P.(C) 12039/2018 Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications stand disposed of
W.P.rC) 12035/2018 with CM APPL. 46591/2018 (for stay)
W.P.(C) 12039/2018 with CM APPL. 46607/2018 (for stay)
Union of India has preferred these writ petitions to assail the common
2018:DHC:8827-DB 2- order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
('the Tribunal') dated 21.03.2018 rendered in OA Nos.1596/2017 and
1111/2017. The direction issued by the Tribunal in the impugned order is that the petitionershouldfollow the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in
M. Nagaraj & others V5. Union ofIndia & others, (2006) 8 SCC 212 and
B.K. Pavitra & others vs. Union of India & others, CA No.2368/2011 decided on 09.02.2017 by the Supreme Court.
After the impugned order was passed, the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court has rendered its decision in Jarnail Singh & Ors. V5.
Lacchmi Narain Gupta & Ors., (2018) 11 SCALE 530. The Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court, which was examining whetherthe decision in
M. Nagaraj (supra) should be referred to a Larger Bench for its re consideration concluded that the decision in M. Nagaraj (supra) does not need to be referred to Seven Judges Bench. However, the conclusion in M
Nagaraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the Nine Judges Bench's decision in the case ofIndra Sawhney & others vs. Union of India & others, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, was held to be invalid to that extent.
There is no gain saying that in view of the latest decision of the
Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh (supra), the Union of India and all others are bound to comply with the same. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the present petitions by directing that the Union of India shall comply with the
Union of India has preferred these writ petitions to assail the common
2018:DHC:8827-DB 2- order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
('the Tribunal') dated 21.03.2018 rendered in OA Nos.1596/2017 and
1111/2017. The direction issued by the Tribunal in the impugned order is that the petitionershouldfollow the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in
M. Nagaraj & others V5. Union ofIndia & others, (2006) 8 SCC 212 and
B.K. Pavitra & others vs. Union of India & others, CA No.2368/2011 decided on 09.02.2017 by the Supreme Court.
After the impugned order was passed, the Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court has rendered its decision in Jarnail Singh & Ors. V5.
Lacchmi Narain Gupta & Ors., (2018) 11 SCALE 530. The Constitution
Bench of the Supreme Court, which was examining whetherthe decision in
M. Nagaraj (supra) should be referred to a Larger Bench for its re consideration concluded that the decision in M. Nagaraj (supra) does not need to be referred to Seven Judges Bench. However, the conclusion in M
Nagaraj (supra) that the State has to collect quantifiable data showing backwardness of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes, being contrary to the Nine Judges Bench's decision in the case ofIndra Sawhney & others vs. Union of India & others, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, was held to be invalid to that extent.
There is no gain saying that in view of the latest decision of the
Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh (supra), the Union of India and all others are bound to comply with the same. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of the present petitions by directing that the Union of India shall comply with the
ORDER
in Jarnail Singh (supra). Since the judgment in Jarnail Singh
(supra) has been rendered only on 26.09.2018, we extend the time for compliance by another three months.
Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms along with pending applications.
NOVEMBER 12, 2018 nn VIPIN SANGHI, J A. K. CHAWLA, J
(supra) has been rendered only on 26.09.2018, we extend the time for compliance by another three months.
Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms along with pending applications.
NOVEMBER 12, 2018 nn VIPIN SANGHI, J A. K. CHAWLA, J