............ Have a nice day............
USER MENU ID IS UNDEFINED IN FINACLE MIS SERVER   Date of Implementation of "VERY GOOD" Bench Mark for MACPs effect from 25.07.2016   Expected DA from Jan 2017 – 3% or 2% ?    One minute talk time for each Rupee in Airtel Payments Bank   AICPIN for October 2016 : Chances for 5% DA from January 2017   Central Government employees retiring from January 2017 to submit online application   Pre-Budget Views of Govt. Employees for inclusion in the Budget for the Year 2017-18: Confederation i.e. Scrap NPS, Minimum Wage Rs. 26,000 & Fitment Formula etc   On Salary Week, Banks Unlikely to Meet Demand for Extra 1 Lakh Cr   82 per cent ATMs dry because government used that money to pay its own employees   National Anthem Before Movie, Rules Supreme Court. Citizens 'Duty-Bound' To Show Respect    undefined

Sunday, 1 May 2016

MP High Court takes a Great Decision about Quota in Govt Job Promotions

In a landmark verdict, the Madhya Pradesh high court has removed reservations for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in government job promotions. This order is expected to affect over 30000 government employees and this verdict may serve base for similar verdicts in other states as well.
Before this verdict, 16% posts were reserved for scheduled castes during promotion and 20% were reserved fro scheduled tribes. This was set under the 2002 Madhya Pradesh Public service rules. The high court set aside this saying that this violates Supreme Court guidelines.

BJP government in Madhya Pradesh is going to challenge this order of High court in the Supreme Court.
“The existing provision relating to reservation, backlog vacancies, carry forward of backlog vacancies…contained in the Rules of 2002 runs contrary to the constitutional provisions contained in clause (4A) and (4B) of Article 16 and Article 335 and law predicated in M Nagraj,” the High Court said.
“All promotions under the Rules of 2002 will be reverted and the gradation lists of various departments will have to be redrawn,” said advocate Amol Shrivastava.
In 2006, the Supreme Court had stated that the states could not provide quotas in promotions without “quantifiable” data showing “backwardness” of the class and their inadequate representation in public employment, in addition to compliance with Article 335 that gives states power to provide reservation in promotion.
This verdict — Nagraj vs Union of India — was being violated by the MP rule, according to the High court decision. As a result of this verdict, quotas in promotions in other states are rendered vulnerable to legal challenges.
source:http://satyavijayi.com/

No comments:

Post a Comment