AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
LAWS(SC)-1999-12-129
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on December 08,1999

AJIT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

AJIT SINGH II V. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
P AND T SCHEDULE CASTE/TRIBE EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION (REGD.) V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
M R BALAJI THE MYSORE STATE CHATHADA VAISH NAYA ASSOCIATION MYSORE ARYA VYSYA MAHASABHA BANGALORE VS. STATE OF MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
C A RAJENDRAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA SCHEDULED CASTE TRIBE EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. STATE BANK OF INDIAS:S NARASIMHA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

R K MINA VS. MCD [LAWS(DLH)-2008-2-388] [REFERRED TO]
AHIR NIMESHKUMAR BABUBHAI VS. SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY [LAWS(GJH)-2000-5-16] [REFERRED]
BRIJ MOHAN PRASAD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2001-2-58] [REFERRED TO]
ROMESH SINGH VS. STATE OF JANDK [LAWS(J&K)-2002-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
MALLELA VENKATA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2000-11-45] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASAM DISTRICT SARPANCHAS ASSOCIATION VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2000-12-8] [REFERRED TO]
M NAGARAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
K ANANTHA REDDY VS. CHUKKA RAMULU [LAWS(APH)-2001-3-129] [REFERRED TO]
K DAYAKAR REDDY VS. SECRETARY TO GOVT OF A P SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT HYD [LAWS(APH)-2001-3-123] [REFERRED TO]
KOGANTI JAYAKRISHNA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-11-185] [REFERRED TO]
B MEENAKSHI VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2001-12-107] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA KASLIWAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR BADHAN VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2009-11-97] [REFERRED TO]
PICHHDA JAN KALYAN SAMITI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-300] [REFERRED]
SURESH CHAND GAUTAM VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2016-3-35] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR SINGH, VS. HARYANA PRATHMIK SHIKSHA PARIYOJNA PARISHAD [LAWS(P&H)-2012-3-521] [REFERRED]
MUMBAI PORT TRUST NON SC/ST EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MUMBAI PORT TRUST [LAWS(BOM)-2016-12-184] [REFERRED TO]
DR. RAJESH KUMAR BADHAN AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2009-8-284] [REFERRED TO]
S. PADMAVATHY VS. REGISTRAR GENERAL [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-243] [REFERRED TO]
AKSHAYA KUMAR SWAIN VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2017-1-96] [REFERRED TO]
SEJAL GARG VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2019-7-145] [REFERRED TO]


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.