GoM formed to make recommendations on job promotions
The social welfare secretary will serve as the convenor. Special invitees include the special chief secretary (Services, HRM), the chief commissioner of land administration (CCLA), the principal secretary (GAD), and the law secretary. The GoM has the authority to summon additional officials as required.
Previously, the govt had formed a high-level committee led by the CCLA to study the matter. However, acknowledging the complex social implications of reservation in promotions — such as its impact on equity, representation, and service — the govt opted for a more holistic approach through the GoM.
It aims to review existing advisory committee reports and officer panel recommendations.
Chief secretary Vijayanand stated that the Supreme Court's M Nagaraj and Jarnail Singh judgments, along with an Andhra Pradesh High Court order in W.P. No. 4415/2016 and related cases, provided key guidelines for implementing reservations in promotions for SCs and STs. These include applying the rule of reservation and the principle of consequential seniority under constitutional provisions.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Your Finger Shape Says a Lot About Your Personality, Read Now
Tips and Tricks
Undo
"The GoM will look into the applicability of the Rule of Reservation in promotions as per the existing guidelines, constitutional provisions and verdicts of Supreme Court and the erstwhile high court of judicature at Hyderabad for Telangana and the Andhra Pradesh directions in the matter for recommending appropriate course of action for implementing the directions of the Supreme Court and High Court in a legally sustainable and socially sensitive manner," said chief secretary.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Supreme Court upholds right to share in property of tribal woman's heirs
The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 17, 2025) upheld the right of the legal heirs of a Scheduled Tribe woman to an equal share in their maternal grandfather's ancestral property. 'There appears to be no rational nexus or reasonable classification for only males to be granted succession over the property of their forebears and not women, more so in the case where no prohibition to such effect can be shown to be prevalent as per law… Article 15(1) states that the state shall not discriminate against any person on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth. This, along with Articles 38 and 46, points to the collective ethos of the Constitution in ensuring that there is no discrimination against women,' a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Joymalya Bagchi held. The court said refusing a woman her right of share in a property only deepened gender discrimination. The judgment was based on an appeal filed by the legal heirs who had sought the partition of a property belonging to their maternal grandfather. The judgment authored by Justice Karol observed that customs too, like the law, could not remain stuck in time. 'Others cannot be allowed to take refuge in customs or hide behind them to deprive others of their right,' the court observed. The lower courts had dismissed the plea by the legal heirs saying their mother had no right in the property of her father on the ground that Scheduled Tribes were not governed by the Hindu Succession Act. The trial court and the appellate court had held that there was no evidence that the children of a woman heir were also entitled to property. The top court, allowing the appeal, said denying the woman's heirs a share of their maternal grandfather's property would violate their right to equality.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
SC allows MP HC to interview prospective civil judges
New Delhi, Jul 17 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to conduct interviews and declare results of the Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) Exam 2022. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar asked the high court to go ahead with the process after it was informed that 77 candidates had cleared the main civil judges exam. The top court passed the order after advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, appearing for the high court, said a re-exam was unconstitutional, impractical and would floodgates of litigation. The top court last year stayed a Madhya Pradesh High Court order restraining recruitment for the post of civil judges carried out without the mandatory requirement of three years of practice. The Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 were amended on June 23, 2023, to make three years of practice compulsory to be eligible to appear for the civil judge entry-level test in the state. The amended rules were upheld by the high court, but it started another round of litigation after two candidates who were not selected contended that they would be eligible if the amended rules were applied and demanded that the cut-off be reviewed. While restraining the recruitment to the post, the high court directed the exclusion of successful candidates in the preliminary examination who did not fulfil the eligibility criteria under the amended recruitment rules. The top court was hearing an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the June 13, 2024 order passed by its division bench directing it to weed out or exclude all those successful candidates in the preliminary examination held on January 14, 2024, who did not fulfil the eligibility criteria under the amended rules. In its appeal, the high court said the division bench failed to appreciate that the power to review a well-reasoned judgment is very limited and only open when there is a mistake and error apparent on the face of the record. 'It is submitted that the conducting of fresh main examination for specific candidates falling between earlier cut-off marks and re-computed cut-off marks in compliance of impugned order/judgment would result in a situation where there would be no level playing field," the appeal said. An advertisement was issued on November 17, 2023, calling for applications from eligible law graduates under the amended recruitment rules. The top court while hearing a challenge to the amended recruitment rules by an interim order permitted all law graduates to appear in the preliminary examination. A division bench of the high court subsequently dismissed the petitions challenging the amendment and upheld the amended recruitment rules. A petition was then filed by two persons claiming both were eligible under the amended recruitment rules and had appeared in the preliminary examination but could not make it to the main examination but a high court division bench dismissed their plea. The two petitioners, Jyotsna Dohalia and Varsha Shrivastava, then filed a review plea on May 25, 2024, which was allowed and the high court restrained recruitment for the post of civil judge. According to the amended Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, three years of practice was a mandatory requirement to appear for judicial services examination at the civil judge level. The amendment exempts outstanding law graduates who have secured at least 70 per cent marks in the general and Other Backward Class (OBC) categories from the mandatory requirement of three years of practice. The division bench of the high court in its order had said that the cut-off marks shall be re-computed, upon the remaining candidates satisfying the criteria under amended recruitment rules. PTI PKS PKS AMK AMK view comments First Published: July 17, 2025, 17:45 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
HC quashes case against Revanth Reddy
Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy received a relief with the Telangana High Court, on Thursday, quashing a case registered against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act. The case was pending before the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under the POA against SCs/STs Act-cum-VII Additional District Sessions Judge of Ranga Reddy at L.B. Nagar. Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya, pronouncing the verdict in a criminal petition filed by Mr. Revanth Reddy seeking to quash the FIR, said that Mr. Revanth Reddy, third accused in the case, was not present at the scene of offence when the crime was 'said to have been committed'. Since the accused was not present at the time of commission of the crime, invoking the special Act would not arise, the judge said. She noted that the complainant could not make out the offence against Mr. Revanth Reddy. The special Act was invoked against him without any legal or factual basis, she said. The case was contrary to the contents mentioned in the charge-sheet. Going by the facts of the case and the details mentioned in the charge-sheet, the HC can exercise powers under Section 484 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the present case, she said. An advocate B.S. Rao, appearing for the de-facto complainant N. Peddi Raju, brought to the notice of the judge that the complainant had five days ago, filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to transfer hearing of the case to any other High Court. Referring to contention of the complainant about the petition in Supreme Court for transfer of the case, the judge said that 'the parties are at liberty to take whatever steps they intend to take, but this court has passed its orders as it is the duty of the court to pass orders'. The case was being heard by the HC since September 22, 2020. A co-ordinate bench of the HC heard contentions of the parties till April 15, 2024. Eventually, the Acting Chief Justice of the HC assigned the matter to the present bench. The matter was heard by the bench on April 25, May 2 and June 14 of this year. The senior counsel appearing for Revanth Reddy, the Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the de-facto complainant presented their contentions. After hearing their extensive arguments only, the bench had reserved orders in the matter, the judge said.
