General manager southern railway v rangachari
WebRangachari v/s General Manager, Southern Railway & Another W.P. No. 1051 of 1959 Decided On, 03 March 1960. At, High Court of Judicature at Madras By, THE HONOURABLE MR. ... The General Manager, Southern Railways, issued a circular on 12th June, 1959, to give effect to the direction of the Railway Board. After pointing out in … Web[957 E] The General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari [1962] 3.S.C.R. 586 referred to (8) Today, the sense that Government has affirmative responsibility for elimination of inequalities, social, economic or otherwise, is one of the dominant forces in constitutional law.
General manager southern railway v rangachari
Did you know?
WebThe General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras-3 And Another. The petitioner holds the post which he described as that of a Law Assistant and the correct designation of which … WebThe General Manager, Southern Railway V. Rangachari (3) June 25, 2014 by Manjit Biswal. ... be assumed that giving retrospective effect to reservations may well cause …
WebThis judgement also overruled General Manager Southern Railway v. Rangachari and Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India verdicts, which said that … WebJun 30, 2016 · law as interpreted by this Court in General Manager, Southern Railway & Another 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.
WebThe General Manager, Southern Railway Vs. Rangachari [1961] INSC 198 (28 April 1961) The General Manager, Southern Railway Vs. Rangachari [1961] INSC 198 (28 April 1961) 1961 Latest Caselaw 198 SC. Pandit M. S. M. Sharma Vs. Shri Sri Krishna Sinha & Ors [1958] INSC 132 (12 December 1958) This appeal was directed against an … WebAfter the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, [1962] 2 S.C.R. 586, the matter was reviewed by the Central …
Web23. The learned Judge upheld the circulars of the Railway Board dated 27th April, 1959 and llth January, 1973 making provision for reservation against selection and non-selection …
WebThis was answered in affirmative in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari15 where the Supreme Court held that the advancement of Socially and Educationally ... 15General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36. 16Id. 17State of Punjab v. Hira Lal, (1970) 3 SCC 567. 18INDIA CONST. art. 335. 19Id. matthew 5:48 in greekWebJan 16, 2024 · More (1962), or promotions to the selection posts, and the matters concerning the salaries, leave, gratuity, periodical increments, pension, age of superannuation, etc. as held in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari (1962). The Supreme Court overruled the judgment passed in the Rangachari case in … hercule parrot’s cagebookWebJan 27, 1998 · However, it ignored the Constitution Bench judgment in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 36, in which the narrow construction of the expression "matters relating to employment' used in Article 16(1) of the Constitution has been rejected by the Apex Court in the following words. matthew 5:48 greekWebFeb 6, 2014 · It all began with The General Manager), Southern Railway v. Rangachari(1). Two circulars issued by the Railway Board reserving selection (promotional) posts in Class III of the Railway Service in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, were questioned in that case as offending … matthew 5:48 nkjvWebPrior to Indra Sawhney, reservation in promotions were permitted under law as interpreted by this Court in General Manager, Southern Railway & Another 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 ... matthew 5 48 nltWebMay 31, 2024 · For example, in General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari, the Court took a very parochial view of Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India and held that “ It is common ground that Art. 16(4) … matthew 5:48 kjvWebOn a writ petition filed by the respondent K. Rangachari in the Madras High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution a writ of mandamus has been issued by the said High Court … matthew 5 48 niv