The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging Central Administrative Tribunal orders granting promotions to railway employees allegedly in breach of the M. Nagraj ratio, citing recent Supreme Court pronouncements.
Writ petition dismissed, no interference warranted with impugned order of CAT.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 4346 of 2018
---- Petitioners
Versus
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Shri H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Order on Board
Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice
23.10.2018
2
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 212 still holds the field.
Sd/Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge
Brijmohan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ application challenging railway promotion orders granted in breach of the M. Nagraj ratio needs interference.
What is the current legal position regarding reservations in promotions in the light of the Constitution Bench decision in Jarnail Singh.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & OthersReferred¶23
SLP (C) No.30621 of 2011 i.e. Jarnail Singh & Others Vs. Lachhmi Narain Gupta & Others decided on 26.09.2018
M. Nagraj Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶23
M. Nagraj Vs. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 · Who else cites this
Union of India And Others
B. Ravikant And Others
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
