Evolution of Reservation in India
Main Article Content
Abstract
Reservation is a tool of increasing social diversity in organizations. It is one of the measures taken by the government to establish social justice. Reservation as a tool for socio-economic upliftment was adopted as a short-term measure for specific categories of people who for various reasons were discriminated against and deprived. This policy was adopted as the means to provide opportunities in employment. While the weaker sections should be given due opportunity, it is necessary to break the vicious circle of limited sections cornering the opportunities.
Downloads
Metrics
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Licensing
TURCOMAT publishes articles under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This licensing allows for any use of the work, provided the original author(s) and source are credited, thereby facilitating the free exchange and use of research for the advancement of knowledge.
Detailed Licensing Terms
Attribution (BY): Users must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. Users may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses them or their use.
No Additional Restrictions: Users may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
References
. Koli Pooran “Reservation Rules in India” 2009 P.11
. http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2010/apr10/chapter8.pdf
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandal_Commission
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India
. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_policy_in_Indian_Institutes_of_Technology
. http://www.petitiononline.com/noquota/
. Indra Sawhney v/s Union of India, AIR 1993 SC, p. 477(638): (1992) Supp 3 SCC 212 : (1992) 6 JT 273:
(1992) 6 SLR 321 : (1992) 22 ATC 385 : (1993) Lab IC 129.
. Oliver Brown et. Al. v/s Board of Education of Topeka et.al., 347 US 483 : 98 L ED 873; Spottswood Thomas
Bolling et. al. v/s C. Melvin Sharpe et.al., 347 US 497 : 98 L ED 884; Marco defunis et. al. v/s Charles
Odegaard, (1974) 416 US 312: 40 Law ED 2d 164; Regents of the University of Califorina v/s Allan Bakke,
(1978) 438 US 265: 57 Law Ed 2d 750; H. Earl Fullilove et. al. v/s Philip M. Klutznick, (1980), 448 US 448 :
Law Ed 2d 902; Metro Broadcasting Inc. v/s Federal Communications Commision, (1990) 111 Law Ed 2d
. Supra note 2.
. Ibid
. C. Chithra v/s State of Kerala, AIR 1997 Ker 143 (145) : (1996) 2 Ker LJ 764 : (1997) 1 SCT 695 : (1997) 1
Ker LT 121.
. Indra Sawhney v/s Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 498 (508) : (2000) 1 SCC 168 : (1999) 9 JT 557 : (1999) 7
Scale 411 : (1999) 10 supreme 270 : (2000) 1 SLT 321 ; (2000) 1 SRJ 304 : 2000 Lab IC 277 : (1999) 6 SLR 1 :
(2000) 3SLJ 101
. H. Earl Fullilove v/s Phillip M. Klutgnick, 1980 (443) US 448 : 65 L.ed. 902 ; Metro Broadcasting Inc. v/s
Federal Communications Commission, 58 IW 5053 : 111 Law 2d 445.
. State of Kerala v/s N.M.Thomas, AIR 1976 SC,p. 490 : (1976) 1 SCR, p.906 : (1976) 2 SCC, p.310 : (1976)
SLR, p. 805 : 1976 Lab IC, p. 395 : (1976) 1 LLJ, p.376.
. AIR 1963 SC 649: (1963) Supp 1 SCR 439.
. AIR 1972 SC 1375 (1397): (1972) 3 SCR 247: (1972) 1 SCC 660.
. R. Chitralekha v/s State of Mysore, AIR 1964 SC 1823 : (1964) 6 SCR 368, Quoted in State of U.P v/s Pradip
Tandon, AIR 1975 SC 563 (569) para 34 : (1975) 2 SCR 761 : (1975) 1 SCC 267 (278) para 34.
. AIR 1970 SC p.35 : (1970) 1 SCR p.413 : (1969) 2 SCC 228, referred in Narayan Sharma (Dr.) v/s Dr. Pankaj
Kr. Lehkar, AIR 2000 SC 72 (77-78) : (2000) 1 SCC 44 : (1999) 7 Scale p.96 : (1999) 9 Supreme p.114 : (2000) 1
SLT 151 : (2000) 1 SCJ 315 : (1999) 10 SRJ p.439 : (2000) 1 CLT p.225 SC.
. AIR 1975 SC p.563: (1975) 2 SCR p.761: (1975) 1 SCC p.267.
. Supra note 13, (38, 39).
. AIR 2003 SC 355 : (2002) 8 SCC 481 : (2002) 9 JT 1/486 : (2002) 8 Supreme 62/359 : (2002) 6 SLT 313 :
(2002) 7 SLT 195: (2003) 1 SRJ 271 : (2002) 6SLR 627, referred in Saurabh Chaudhary (Dr.) v/s Union of India,
AIR 2004 SC 2212 : (2004) 5 SCC 618 : (2004) JT Supp 1 SC 578 : (2004) 5Scale 432 : (2004) 4 Supreme 292 :
AIR SCW 2844 : (2004) 19 ILD 19 : (2004) 18 AIC 1 (SC)
. AIR 2003 SC 3724 : (2003) 7 JT (SC) 1: (2003) 6 Scale 325 : (2003) 6 Supreme 303 : (2003) 5 SLR 1,
referred in Saurabh Chaudhary (Dr.) v/s Union of India, AIR 2004 SC 2212 : (2004) 5 SCC 618 : (2004) JT Supp
SC 578 : (2004) 5Scale 432 : (2004) 4 Supreme 292 : 2004 AIR SCW 2844 : (2004) 19 ILD 19 : (2004) 18 AIC
(SC), see also Pradeep Jain v/s Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1420 : (1984) 3 SCR 942 : (1984) 3 SCC 654 :
(1984) 1 Scale 894 : (1984) 2 LLJ 481.
. Anil v/s The Dean, Government Medical College, Nagpur, AIR 1985 Bom 153 (156) ; see also puppala
Sudarsan v/s State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1958 AP (DB); S. A. Partha v/s State of Mysore, AIR 1961 Mys 220
(DB).
. D. P. Joshi v/s Madhya Bharat State, AIR 1955 SC 334, para 1 : (1955) 1 SCR 1215 : 1955 SCJ 298.
. State of Kerala v/s T. P. Roshana, AIR 1979 SC 765 (773) : (1979) 2 SCR 974 :( 1979) 1 SCC 572.
. AIR 1971 SC 1762: (1971) Supp SCR 608 : (1971) 2 SCC 293 quoted in State of U.P. v /s Pardip Tandon,
AIR 1975 SC 563 (570) : (1975) 2 SCR 761 : (1975) 1 SCC 267.
. Preeti Srivastava (Dr.) v/s State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 2894 (2919-2920): (1999) 7 SCC 120:
(1999) 5 JT 498 : (1999) 4 Scale 579: ( 1999) 7 Supreme 81: (1999) 7 SLT 534 : (1999) 9 SRJ 371 (1999) 4 SLR
; overruling Post- Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v/s K. L. Narasimhan, AIR 1997 SC
: (1997) 6 SCC 283: (1997) 5 JT 313 : (1997) 4 Scale 75: ( 1997) 5 supreme 37: 1997 Lab IC 2317: (1997) 2
LLN 626: (1997) 4 SLR 701 : (1997) 2 UJ 74 and Ajay Kumar Singh v/s State of Bihar, (1994) 4 SCC 401 : (1994)
JT 662: (1994) 2 Scale 302: (1994) 2 SLR 321: (1994) 2 UJ 689; approving Sadhna Devi (Dr.) v/s State of U.
P., AIR 1997 SC 1120: ( 1997) 3 SCC 90 : (1997)3 JT 255 : (1997) 2 Scale 189 : (1997) 2 SLR 72: ( 1992) 2
Supreme 351 : (1997) 1 UJ 458 ; see also Fazal Ghafoor (Dr.) v/s Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 48: 1988 Supp.
SCC 794 : (1988) 3 JT 698 : (1988) 2 Scale 746 : (1988) 2 UJ 613. (There should be no reservation for admission
to the highest technical courses called ‘super- specialties’) Jgdish Saran (Dr.) v/s Union of India, AIR 1980 SC
: (1980) 2 SCR 831: (1980) 2 SCC 768.
. Ritesh R. Shah v/s Dr. Y. L. Yamul, AIR 1996 SC 1378 (1382): (1996) 3 SCC 253 : (1996) 2 Scale 341 :
(1996) 2 JT 495: (1996) 2 Supreme 585 : (1996) 2 AD (SC) 224: (1996) 1 UJ 735: (1996) 2 SLR 46 : (1996) 5
SLR 135.
. Ajay Srivastva (Dr.) v/s State of Rajasthan ,AIR 2003 Raj 164 (172): (2003) 6 Ind LD 560 : (2003) 1 Raj LR
: (2003) 2 Raj LW 705 : (2003) 2 WLC 437 ; see also Bajrang Soni (Dr.) v/s State of Rajasthan, AIR 1999 Raj
: (1999) 2 Raj LR 336; Pre P.G. Medical Sangharsh Committee v/s State of Rajasthan, AIR 2001 SC 2743 :
(2001) 8 SCC 694: (2001) 6 JT 466: (2001) 5 Scale 205 : (2001) 6 supreme 130: (2001) 5 SLT 822 : (2001) 8 SRJ
; Vineet Singh(Dr.) v/s State of Rajasthan, AIR 1999 Raj 187: (1999) 1 Raj LR 60: (1999) 1 WLC 667; K.
Duraisamy v/s State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2001 SC 717: (2001) 2 SCC 538: (2001) 2 JT 48 : (2001) 1 Scale 345;
(2001) 1 Supreme 434: (2001) 1 SLT 696: (2001)2 SCJ89: (2001) 2 SRJ 406.
. AIR 2000 SC 72 (84,85): (2000) 1 SCC 44: (1999) 8 JT 612: (1999) 7 Scale 96 : (1999) 9 supreme 114 :
(2000) 1 SLT 151 : (2000) 1 SCJ 315 (1999) 10 SRJ 439 : (2000) 1 CLT 225 (SC).