SURAJAN KAPARDAR vs SHASHI BHUSHAN SHARMA — C.A. No. 10738/2013

Case under Section XVII-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010158042008

Filing Date

29-May-2008

Registration No

C.A. No. 10738/2013

Diary Number

15804/2008

Order Date

06-Aug-2019

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Disposed Off

Last updated 03-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XVII-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SURAJAN KAPARDAR

    Adv. VISHAL ARUN ABHIJEET SINHA[P-3] ABHIJEET SINHA[P-4] ABHIJEET SINHA[P-6] ABHIJEET SINHA[P-7] ABHIJEET SINHA[P-3]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHASHI BHUSHAN SHARMA

    Adv. ANIL K. JHA VIKAS MEHTA ABHIJEET SINHA[R-5]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 06-Aug-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 06-Aug-2019

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

  4. 30-Jul-2019

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

  5. 23-Jul-2019

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

  6. 11-Jul-2019

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

  7. 10-Jul-2019

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta

  8. 02-May-2019

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

  9. 01-May-2019

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

  10. 25-Apr-2019

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

  11. 24-Apr-2019

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

  12. 23-Apr-2019

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna

  13. 11-Apr-2019

    After Week/Month/Vacation

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

  14. 06-Mar-2019

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 06-Mar-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  16. 27-Mar-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 27-Mar-2015

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 22-Nov-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 30-Aug-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 14-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 07-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 11-Nov-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 26-Sep-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 16-Sep-2011
  25. 29-Aug-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  26. 17-Aug-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  27. 05-Aug-2011
  28. 28-Jul-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  29. 08-Jul-2011
  30. 28-Apr-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  31. 04-Feb-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  32. 13-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  33. 11-Sep-2009
  34. 17-Mar-2009
  35. 23-Jan-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  36. 23-Jan-2009
  37. 19-Dec-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  38. 19-Dec-2008
  39. 03-Nov-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  40. 14-Oct-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  41. 22-Aug-2008
  42. 08-Aug-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  43. 23-Jun-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  44. 03-Jun-2008

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  45. 29-May-2008

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 10738/2013

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Surajan Kapardar v. Shashi Bhushan Sharma (C.A. 10738/2013) The Supreme Court disposed of appeals challenging a Jharkhand High Court judgment that invalidated Section 4(6) of the Jharkhand Reservation Act (2001) as unconstitutional. The appellants, who had worked as Executive Engineers on current duty charge since 2008 under an interim protective order, were directed to be considered for promotion to Superintendent Engineer if otherwise eligible and suitable, recognizing their 11 years of service in the position. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case