The Supreme Court has agreed to examine whether the “creamy layer” principle should be implemented in SC and ST reservations. A PIL argues that allowing affluent SC/ST candidates to avail quota benefits violates equality and defeats the purpose of social justice.
The Delhi High Court dismissed a PIL for a separate Gujjar Regiment in the Indian Army, emphasizing equal recruitment policies without caste distinctions. The judges criticized the demand as unconstitutional, reaffirming the Army’s commitment to national unity through integrated regiments. The petitioner withdrew the case after the court’s observations.
A group of UPSC aspirants challenged the age limit cut-off of August 1 in letters to the Chief Justice of India (CJI). They argue that the cut-off date is unfair, as it discriminates against candidates born in the same year but just a few months or days apart. The aspirants claim this policy denies them equal opportunities. They have urged the CJI to address this issue in the interest of fairness.
The Supreme Court of India clarified that the Constitution does not specify criteria for government servant promotions, leaving this to the discretion of the legislature and executive. The bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, highlighted the flexibility in determining promotion norms within the administrative framework. This sheds light on the evolving emphasis on merit in promotion criteria. The judgment emphasized that ‘merit-cum-seniority’ and ‘seniority-cum-merit’ are not mandated by law but are flexible and fluid concepts, providing dynamic guidelines for developing promotion policies.
Today (16th May): The Supreme Court ruled that Air India Limited ceased to be a state entity under Article 12 of the Constitution after its disinvestment and transfer to the Tata Group. The court dismissed appeals against the Bombay High Court’s verdict, stating that post-privatization, the company no longer fell under the court’s writ jurisdiction. The appellants were directed to seek alternative avenues for remedy.
The Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday (April 3rd), questioned the state government on a controversial petition challenging 30% horizontal reservation for domiciled women in government jobs. The petition challenges a provision of the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Act, alleging it exceeds constitutional limitations. The court scheduled the next hearing for May 7. (Words: 49)
On 4th March: The Supreme Court of India has requested a government response to allegations of gender bias in the promotions of female army officers. Thirty women officers filed a contempt petition citing disparities in their promotion process compared to male counterparts. The plea challenges a selection board recommending only eight women officers for promotion against 42 available slots, despite a previous directive for fair and transparent selection processes.