2010 (3) TMI 916

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t, 2001. In terms of the said amendment, the State of Karnataka passed an enactment giving benefit to its employees. The said enactment was also challenged subsequently by amending the Writ Petitions. The main challenge against various Constitutional amendments was dealt with by this Court in M.Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2006) 8 SCC p.212. The said Constitutiona .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... it petitions involve the constitutionality of Article 16(4A). The Court, by an interim order, has directed not to revert any of the petitioners from their existing placement nor affect their standing in the seniority list, but at the same time the provisions of Article 16(4A) can be implemented and by virtue of that provision if some of the reserve category candidates are entitled to promotion, th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refore, direct that this batch of writ petitions be listed before a Constitution Bench in the month of February,2003. We have made it clear in the judgment of Nagaraj (supra) that .We have not examined the validity of individual enactments of appropriate States and that question will be gone into in individual writ petition by the appropriate bench in accordance with law laid down by us in the pr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X