Union Of India vs. Geetha K

ITEM NO.11

COURT NO.1

SECTION XII

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No. 51017/2024

[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-03-2024 in WP No. 6923/2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras]

A. MALINI & ORS.

Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Respondent $(s)$

$(IA)$ No.272212/2024-CONDONATION $\overline{0}$ F DELAY $\mathbf{I}\mathbf{N}$ FILING and $TA$ No.272213/2024-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.272214/2024-PERMISSION TO FILE PETITION (SLP/TP/WP/..) )

Date: 02-12-2024 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

	For Petitioner(s)	Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv.
		Mr. Ch Leela Sarveswar, Adv.
		Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv.
		Mr. C Raghavendran, Adv.
		Mr. K Mohan, Adv.
		Mrs. P Shanthi, Adv.
		Mr. Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, AOR

For Respondent(s)

UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following $0 R D E R$

Tag with SLP (C) No. 21657/2024, titled "Union Of India and Ors. v. Geetha K.and Anr."

SignatureNot Verified To be listed before the Bench presided over by Hon'ble Ms. ta pande $\sim$ 2024 12 11 🏭 stice Bela M. Trivedi.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that 10% marks have been reserved depending upon the year in which one was enrolled/registered with the employment exchange.

In view of the aforesaid criteria, a contradiction emerges as the first criteria fixes the above age limit, notwithstanding the fact that there were no recruitments during a period of eight years.

(BABITA PANDEY) (R.S. NARAYANAN) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR