Madhya Pradesh High Court (file photo) – Photo: Amar Ujala Expansion 100% communal reservation on the posts of assistant grade and speedy writers 1994 in Madhya Pradesh High Court Non-implementation has been challenged in the Supreme Court. While hearing the petition, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi issued a show cause notice to the MP High Court. The next hearing on the petition is scheduled for February 6. In the SLP filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner Pushpendra Patail, it has been stated that 16 In the result of preliminary examination issued by the High Court on March percent communal reservation has been implemented. Meritorious candidates of reserved category are not selected in unreserved category. Against this he filed a petition in the High Court. The High Court’s double bench dismissed the petition on January 2 after hearing. The Jugalpeeth has said in its order that the preliminary examination in the advertisement has been organized as a screening test. Screening test was conducted to shortlist the candidates. That’s why reservation doesn’t apply in that. While upholding the recruitment process of the High Court, the Jugal Peeth has said in its order that the reservation system is applicable in the selection process. It was a screening. In the petition filed in the Supreme Court, it has been said that the High Court has unconstitutionally used the Reservation Act 1255 against Section 4(4) of the Constitution, which is Article And 16 is a flagrant violation. In the case of Indra Sahni v. Union of India 506, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court has clearly stated that in the unreserved category Only meritorious irrespective of category will be selected and the above process will be followed at each stage of examination. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has also clearly arranged in cases related to PSC examination on 7th April that the birth of the unreserved class is different from the meritorious candidates. only occurs. Which is in violation of the decisions given by the Supreme Court in the judgments of the Supreme Court, Indra Sahni vs. Bharat Sangh, Saurabh Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Rajesh Kumar Daria. Advocate Rameshwar Singh Thakur appeared on behalf of the petitioner. ,
Madhya Pradesh High Court (file photo) - Photo: Amar Ujala Expansion 100% communal reservation on the posts of assistant grade and speedy writers 1994 in Madhya Pradesh High Court Non-implementation has been challenged in the Supreme Court. While hearing the petition, Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi issued a show cause notice to the MP High Court. The next hearing on the petition is scheduled for February 6. In the SLP filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner Pushpendra Patail, it has been stated that 16 In the result of preliminary examination issued by the High Court on March percent communal reservation has been implemented. Meritorious candidates of reserved category are not selected in unreserved category. Against this he filed a petition in the High Court. The High Court's double bench dismissed the petition on January 2 after hearing. The Jugalpeeth has said in its order that the preliminary examination in the advertisement has been organized as a screening test. Screening test was conducted to shortlist the candidates. That's why reservation doesn't apply in that. While upholding the recruitment process of the High Court, the Jugal Peeth has said in its order that the reservation system is applicable in the selection process. It was a screening. In the petition filed in the Supreme Court, it has been said that the High Court has unconstitutionally used the Reservation Act 1255 against Section 4(4) of the Constitution, which is Article And 16 is a flagrant violation. In the case of Indra Sahni v. Union of India 506, a 9-judge bench of the Supreme Court has clearly stated that in the unreserved category Only meritorious irrespective of category will be selected and the above process will be followed at each stage of examination. The Madhya Pradesh High Court has also clearly arranged in cases related to PSC examination on 7th April that the birth of the unreserved class is different from the meritorious candidates. only occurs. Which is in violation of the decisions given by the Supreme Court in the judgments of the Supreme Court, Indra Sahni vs. Bharat Sangh, Saurabh Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, Rajesh Kumar Daria. Advocate Rameshwar Singh Thakur appeared on behalf of the petitioner. ,
Related News
ads
Recent News
Comments