THE STATE OF HARYANA STATE OF HARYANA CHIEF SECRETARY vs GAJEY SINGH MUWAL (DEAD) THR. LRS. — C.A. No. 5587/2010
Case under 4301_5Jj-service Laws : Five Judge Matter Section IV. Status: PENDING.
CNR: SCIN010044892007
Filing Date
12-Feb-2007
Registration No
C.A. No. 5587/2010
Diary Number
4489/2007
Order Date
01-Aug-2024
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Data as of 20-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THE STATE OF HARYANA STATE OF HARYANA CHIEF SECRETARY
Adv. AKSHAY AMRITANSHU [P-2] AKSHAY AMRITANSHU [P-1] MONIKA GUSAIN (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [P-1]
Respondent(s)
GAJEY SINGH MUWAL (DEAD) THR. LRS.
Adv. O. P. BHADANI (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-1] AMRISH KUMAR[R-5] AJIT KUMAR EKKA[R-1] O. P. BHADANI (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-4] O. P. BHADANI (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-2] RAVI PRAKASH[R-1] AJIT KUMAR EKKA[R-1.4] AJIT KUMAR EKKA[R-1.3] AJIT KUMAR EKKA[R-1.1] RAVI PRAKASH[R-1.2] AJIT KUMAR EKKA[R-1.5]
Hearing History
Judge: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
Fixed Date by Court
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 07-Nov-2024 | Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week |
| 06-Nov-2024 | Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week |
| 01-Aug-2024 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 08-Feb-2024 | Fixed Date by Court |
| 07-Feb-2024 | Fixed Date by Court |
Orders in this case
Common Record of Proceedings — heard with connected matters
Lead case: C.A. No. 2317/2011
Summary: State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) - Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes Court Decision: The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench held that sub-classification of Scheduled Castes for reservation purposes is constitutionally permissible, overruling the prior judgment in E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh which had declared such sub-classification unconstitutional. Key Reasoning: The Court reasoned that although Scheduled Castes are identified through a Presidential notification under Article 341, this does not create a homogenous, indivisible class incapable of further classification. Rather, substantial empirical evidence demonstrates inter-se backwardness among different castes within the SC category, and when a class contains non-similarly situated groups, the State may permissibly sub-classify for targeted affirmative action, consistent with Article 14's equality guarantee. The Court further held that such sub-classification does not violate Article 341(2) since no caste is actually being included or excluded from the Presidential List—only preferential treatment within the reserved quota is being allocated. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts