JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Delay condoned.
(2.)We are of the view that there are nomerits in the review applications.
(3.)In Ajit Singh II v. State of Punjab JT 1999 (7 SC 153 = 1997 (7 SCC 209, it was stated (at PP. 229-230 relving upon earlier judgments starting from 1963, that Article 16 (4 was only an enabling provision and did not impose any constitutional duty nor confer any fundamental right for reservation. The observations at page 691 by Jeevan Reddy, j. in Indira Sawhney relied upon in the review applications do not deal with the above issue. It was the view of two constitution bench judgments of this court one of 1963 in M. R. Balaji v. State of mysore 1963 (Suppl) (1 SCR 439 and another in 1968 in C. A. Rajendran v. Union of India 1968 (1 SCR 721 and also two three judgments of this court in P and T Scheduled Caste/tribe Employees welfare Association (Regd. ) v. Union of India 1998 (4 SCC 147 and State Bank of India v. Scheduled caste/tribe Employees Welfare Association jt 1996 (4 SC 347 = 1996 (4 SCC 119, that Article 16 (4 was only an enabling provision. The view was nowhere dissented in Indira Sawhney much less at page 691 by Jeevan Reddy, J.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.