Monday, Nov 19th

Last update:02:59:54 PM GMT

You are here: News Current News प्रोन्नति में आरक्षण आँख बन्द करके नहीं

प्रोन्नति में आरक्षण आँख बन्द करके नहीं

E-mail

vfEcdk izlkn] ,MoksdsV

vkj{k.k] ;ksX;rk ds e[key ij v;ksX;rk ds VkV dk iScUn gSA vkj{k.k ls xq.koÙkk izHkkfor gksrh gS ;g fufoZokn gS] ;gh dkj.k gS fd ns'k ds lkr loksZPp egRo okys laLFkku vkj{k.k dh ifjf/k ls ckgj j[ks x;s gSaA gj oxZ tkfr esa ;ksX; yksxksa dh deh ugha gS D;ksafd vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tu tkfr rFkk fiNM s oxZ ds yksxksa dk p;u lkekU; Js.kh ds vUrZxr Hkh gksrk gSA ;ksX;rk fdlh tkfr] /keZ] oxZ fo'ks"k dh eksgrkt ugha gksrh gS bldk lk{kkr mnkgj.k ckck lkgsc MkW- Hkhejko vEcsMdj gSa ftUgsa lafo/kku rS;kj djus okyh Mªkf¶Vax desVh dk v/;{k cuk;k x;k Fkk mudh ;ksX;rk] iz[kj psruk ,oa cqf)eÙkk ds v/kkj ij u fd vkj{k.k ds rgrA ckck lkgsc dk liuk nfyrksa dks flQZ ljdkjh ukSdjh fnykuk ugha Fkk cfYd mudks ;ksX; cukdj lEiw.kZ fodkl djuk FkkA mudk liuk pdukpwj gqvk gS D;ksafd vkj{k.k ls oVhZdy fodkl gqvk gksfjtsUVy ughaA
ljdkjh ukSdjh esa izksUufr ds le; ifj.kkeh ykHk nsdj nqckjk vkj{k.k ykHk nsus ds ljdkj dh uhfr dks tksj dk >Vdk tksj ls gh yxk gSA ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ}; iznhi dkUr ,oa _rqjkt voLFkh dh ihB us mÙkj izns'k ljdkj }kjk 2007 esa tkjh la'kksf/kr vkj{k.k uhfr ds fu;e 8-A dks vlaoS/kkfud djkj nsrs gq, jn~n djus okyk vge QSlyk fn;k gSA
izeq[k lfpo mÙkj izns'k ds }kjk 14 flrEcj 2007 dks tkjh bl la'kksf/kr fu;e ds dkj.k lHkh foHkkxksa dh ofj"Brk lwfp;ka la'kksf/kr gks jgh Fkha ftlds dkj.k igys tks vf/kdkjh@deZpkjh ofj"B Fks os dfu"B gks jgs Fks rFkk dfu"B ofj"B blls iwjk rkuk&ckuk xM cM k jgk FkkA blls {kqCn gksdj izse dqekj flag ,oa vU; us mPp U;k;ky; esa ;kfpdk nkf[ky dh ckn esa ipkl vU; ;kfpdkvksa dks Hkh flfeyj dsl gksus ds dkj.k blls lEc) dj fn;k x;kA
;kfpdkdÙkkZvksa dh vksj ls loZ Jh
S.K.Kalia, Senior Advocate, Dr. L.P.Misra, Rajan Roy, Samir Kalia, K.S. Pawar, Ramesh Pandey, Sandeep Dixit, P.K. Srivastava, B.K. Yadav, Pankaj Gupta, Upendra Nath Misra, Sharad Bhatnagar, Ashutosh Singh, Shishir Jain, Farid Ahmad, Umesh Chandra Pandey, S.M.Royekwar, Amit Bose, N.K. Panday, B.K. Singh, Sudeep Seth, Rajesh Tiwari, Vikas Budhwar, Arvind Kumar, S.C. Shukla, Alok Mathur, Deepak Seth and Vivek Raj Singh. rFkk foi{kh ljdkj ,oa vU; dh vksj ls loZ Jh R.N. Trivedi, Senior Advocate, P.N. Gupta, C.S.C, Mahesh Chandra, K.S.Pawar, Manish Kumar, Brijesh Kumar Jatav, S.C. Yadav, Sanchit S.Asthana, Anand Swaroop Rai, I.P. Singh, P.N. Gupta, mifLFkr gq, fo}ku ofj"B vf/koDrk ,l-ds- dkfy;k us izHkkoiw.kZ cgl djrs gq, ihB dks crk;k fd bl la'kksf/kr fu;e ds ykxw gks tkus ds dkj.k ljdkjh egdesa esa dk;Zjr vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tu tkfr ds vf/kdkfj;ksa@ deZpkfj;ksa dks nksckjk vkj{k.k dk ykHk fey jgk gS blh ds lkFk ifj.kkeh ykHk nsus ds dkj.k os ofj"B inksa ij vklhu gks jgs gSa rFkk igys ls vklhu vukjf{kr Js.kh ds vf/kdkjh@ deZpkjh dfu"B gks tk jgs gSa ftlds dkj.k le; ls igys vkjf{kr Js.kh ds vf/kdkjh@ deZpkjh ofj"B inksa ij dCtk dj ys jgs gSa] ;fn bl fu;e dks jn~n u fd;k x;k rks vkus okys le; esa 2011&12 rd lHkh cM s inksa ij flQZ vkjf{kr Js.kh ds yksx gh jgsaxs ftlls lkjk lkekftd rkuk&ckuk fNUu&fHkUu gks tk;sxkA viuh cgl dks vkxs c< krs gq, dkfy;k th us ;g Hkh dgk fd ;g fu;e lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14]16¼1½ 16¼4½] 16¼4,½ o 335 dh ewy Hkkouk ds foijhr Hkh gSA
ljdkj dh vksj ls bu ;kfpdkvksa dh iks"k.kh;rk (Maintainability) dks bl vk/kkj ij pqukSrh nh x;h fd bl ekeys esa blh mPp U;k;ky; dh nks U;k;k/kh'kksa ¼ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ}; f'ko dqekj flag ,oa lHkkthr ;kno½ dh ihB us bykgkckn esa ;kfpdk la- 63127/2010, eqdqUn dqekj JhokLro cuke mÙkj izns'k ljdkj ,oa vU; dks [kkfjt djrs gq, fu;e 8-A dks oS/k Bgjk;k gS rFkk bl ihB ij ;g fu.kZ; ck/;dkjh gS blfy, ek= bl otg ls gh ;s lHkh ;kfpdk,a [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSaA ;kfpdkdrkZ ds vf/koDrk us bldk tksjnkj fojks/k djrs gq, dgk 'The said judgment of this Court at Allahabad is per incuriam' rFkk ;g ck/;dkjh ugha gS blds fy, Hkh dbZ rdZ fn,] ftlesa lcls egRoiw.kZ rdZ Fkk fd 'The Division Bench did not find it necessary to ask the State Government whether they have complied with the directives issued in the case of M. Nagraj, for which neither time was granted to seek instructions to the learned Chief Standing Counsel nor to file a counter affidavit. tks fd ,d egRoiw.kZ vk/kkj gSA
vius lkB i`"Bksa ls vf/kd ds bl QSlys esa ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZ}; us dsl ds lHkh i{kksa ij casino online izdk'k Mkyrs gq, ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ;ksa dk mYys[k fd;k gSA
foif{k;ksa dh eq[; vkifÙk rFkk ttesaV ds per incuriam dks Decide djrs gq, U;k;ewfrZ}; us dgk
:

'A judgment can be said to have been rendered per incuriam when it is passed in ignorance of the relevant provisions of the Act or the Rules, if it suffers from any apparent mistake, it is against any statutory provision of law which provision has not been considered nor discussed or when it is not in consonance with the judgment of Apex Court or so to say, it is against the law laid down by the Apex Court, which is binding on all the Courts, under Article 141 of the Constitution. Reference can be made to following jeux casino machine a sous cases.
1.    (1988) 2 SCC 602,         A.R.Antulay versus         R.S.Nayak (para 42).
2.    (1990) 3 SCC 682, Punjab     Land Development and         Reclamation Corporation     Ltd. versus Presiding         Officer, Labour Court,         (para 42.)
3.    (2001) 6 SCC 356, Fuerst     Day Lawson Ltd. versus     Jindal Exports Limited         (paras 19, 20 and 21.)
4. (2003) 5 SCC 448, State of     Bihar versus Kalika Kuer     @ Kalika Singh and others     (paras 5,6,8 & 9.)
5.    (2004) 7 SCC 558, Nirmal     Jeet Kaur versus online casino State of     M.P., (para 22.)
6.    (2006) 6 SCC 395,         K.H.Siraj versus High         Court of Kerala,
7.    (2006) 9 SCC 643, Union     of India versus Manik Lal     Banerjee,(paras11and 12.)
8.    (2010) 5 SCC 513, V.         Kishan Rao versus Nikhil     Super Specialty Hospital     and another (paras 51 and     52).'

iz'uxr lHkh ekeys ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk fu.khZr M.Nagraj (Supra) esa vk/kkfjr fl)kUrksa ds vk/kkj ij fu.khZr djrs gq, vius fu.kZ; esa U;k;ewfrZ}; us vkxs dgk "In M.Nagraj's case, the Supreme Court made casino online it clear that "The point which Fra 2012 sa ble ogsa et mobil Casino tilgjengelig. we are emphasising is that ultimately the present controversy is regarding the exercise of the power by the State Government depending upon the fact situation in each case. Therefore, "vesting of the power" by an enabling provision may be constitutionally valid and yet "exercise of the power" by the State in a given case may be arbitrary, particularly, if the State fails to identify and measure backwardness and inadequacy keeping in mind the efficiency of service as required under Article 335". Their Lordship of the Division Bench did not address themselves to the aforesaid mandate of the Constitution Bench judgment in M. Nagraj (supra)."
nwjxkeh ifj.kke nsus okys lekt@ljdkj dks izHkkfor djus okys bl egRoiw.kZ QSlys dks nsus esa ekuuh; U;k;ewfrZx.k us mPpre U;k;ky; ds Indra Sawhney versus Union of India, reported in 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 fMLdl fd;k gS rFkk vkxs dgk "For judging the validity of the aforesaid rule, we have to see what has been held and observed in the case of M. Nagraj. The broad issues that arose for determination in the aforesaid case related to the validity, interpretation, and implementation of the 77th, 81st, 82nd and 85th Constitution Amendment Acts and action taken in pursuance thereof which sought to reverse decisions of the Supreme Court in matters relating to promotion in public employment and their application with retrospective effect.
The Supreme Court in para 43 of the said case observed, that in that case, they were are concerned with the right of an individual to equal opportunity on one hand and preferential treatment to an individual belonging to a Backward Class in order to bring about an equal level-playing field in the matter of public employment. The Apex Court in that case was concerned with conflicting claims within the concept of justice, social, economic and political. It observed as under:
"The conflicting claim of individual right under Article 16(1) and the preferential treatment given to a backward class has to be balanced. both the claims have a particular object to be achieved. the question is of optimisation of these conflicting interest and claims."

vius QSlys esa vkxs M. Nagraj (Supra) dsl ds iSjkxzkQ 44] 104] 106] 107] 119] 121] 122] 123 dks m/k`r djrs gq, fy[kk "Their Lordships concluded that the object behind the impugned Constitutional Amendments is to confer discretion on the State to make reservation for SCs/STs in promotions subject to the circumstances and the Constitutional limitations indicated therein."
"In the light of the constitutional limits and the circumstances enunciated in the case of M. Nagraj, we have to test the validity of the rule 8-A, Section 3(7) of the Act of 1994 and the Eligibility List Rules, 1986 as amended from time to time under challenge."

vUr esa lHkh i{kksa dh cgl /kS;ZiwoZd lqudj mlds igyqvksa ij xgurk ls fopkj djds fu.kZ; fn;k "For the reasons given above and the discussions made, we declare the provisions of Section 3(7) of the Act, 1994 and that of Rule 8-A of the U.P. Government Servants Seniority (Third Amendment) Rules, 2007 as invalid, ultra vires and unconstitutional. Consequently, the Government Order dated 17.10.2007 is also hereby quashed.
In view of our finding that reservation in promotion as provided under Section 3(7) of the Act, 1994 is no more available, the Eligibility List Rules, 1986 as amended in 1995 and 2001, in so far as they provide for preparation of separate eligibility lists of general category and scheduled castes and scheduled tribes candidates with accelerated seniority, lose their significance and shall remain no more operative.
Consequent to the aforesaid declaration, we quash all the seniority lists, which have been prepared by applying Rule 8-A and are subject-matter of challenge in their respective writ petitions in the bunch. This direction will equally be applicable to all the departments of the State Government and the Corporations, etc.
We further clarify that in case the State Government decides to provide reservation in promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State, it is free to do so after undertaking the exercise as required under the constitutional provisions, keeping in mind the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M. Nagraj. But till such an exercise is done and enactment/Rule is consequently made, no reservation in promotion on any post or classes of posts under the services of the State including the corporations, etc. shall be made henceforth. However, all promotions already made as per the provision/rule of reservation, where the benefit of Rule 8-A has not been given, while making the promotions, shall not be disturbed by the declaration aforesaid and shall stand protected."

izns'k ds izeq[k lekpkj i=ksa us bl fu.kZ; dks izksUufr esa vkj{k.k voS/k crkdj Hkze QSyk;k gS tcfd U;k;ewfrZx.k us la'kksf/kr fu;e 8-A ds rgr cuk;h x;h ofj"Brk lwph dks jn~n djrs gq, dgk gS fd ;fn ljdkj izksUufr esa vkj{k.k nsuk pkgrh gS rks ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; }kjk
M. Nagraj case esa vo/kkfjr fl)kUrksa ds rgr fufgr izfØ;k viukdj mlds vuqlkj fu;e cukdj gh dj ldrh gS fcuk ,slk fd;s ughaA