Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 234 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing State Of M.P vs Raghuveer Singh Yadav on 8 August, 1994

Dharmendra Brahmchari & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 22 June, 2011

In the matter of State of M.P. & Ors. V. Raghuveer Singh Yadav & Ors. [(1994) 6 SCC 151], after the selection process had commenced written examination was held, interview cards were issued, in view of the amendment to the relevant rules, the State of Madhya Pradesh cancelled the recruitment process and directed to make recruitment afresh in accordance with the amended rules. Challenge to the said action succeeded before the High Court. However, in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon'ble Court upheld the action of the State. The Court held, "It is not a case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered of their claims according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules have only prospective operation. The Government is entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State is entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules."
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asha.P vs State Of Kerala on 12 November, 2009

48. The decision in State of M.P. And Others v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and Others ((1994) 6 SCC 151) is relied on to contend that what the petitioners have, is a legitimate expectation which can be defeated by a change of policy or the amendment of the Rules. That was a case where after the conduct of the written examination for selection as WPC.2021/09R & CONN.CASES 121 Inspector in the Weight and Measures Department and pending interview, the Government amended the Rules and altered the qualification for eligibility. On the basis of the amended Rules, the Government withdrew the earlier Notification and intended to proceed with the recruitment afresh. The respondents had successfully challenged the amended Rules on the ground that the Rules could not be amended retrospectively. It was in this context that the Court held as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 65 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Another vs Shankar on 9 October, 2020

"In the case of State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consisting of K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ., had to consider the question whether the State could change a qualification for the recruitment during the process of recruitment which had not resulted into any final decision in favour of any candidate. In paragraph 5 of the Report in this connection it was observed that it is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualification for recruitment. In the case before the Court pursuant to the amended Rules, the Government had withdrawn the earlier notification and wanted to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It was held that this was not the case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules had only prospective operation. The Government was entitled to conduct selection in 30 of 53 ::: Downloaded on - 09-11-2020 00:14:43 ::: LPA No. 1332 of 2019 and 104 connected case ...31...
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sri Vinayak Bharani M S vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 July, 2023

In State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consisting of K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ., had to consider the question whether the State could change a qualification for the recruitment during the process of recruitment which had not resulted into any final decision in favour of any candidate. In para 5 of the Report in this connection it was observed that it is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe 57 qualification for recruitment. In the case before the court pursuant to the amended Rules, the Government had withdrawn the earlier notification and wanted to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It was held that this was not the case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules had only prospective operation. The Government was entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State was entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules.
Karnataka High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sonu Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 23 November, 2020

"In the case of State of M.P v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav,a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consisting of K.Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ., had to consider the question whether the State could change a qualification for the recruitment during the process of recruitment which had not resulted into any final decision in favour of any candidate. In paragraph 5 of the Report in this connection it was observed that it is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualification for recruitment. In the case before the Court pursuant to the amended Rules, the Government had withdrawn the earlier notification and wanted to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It was held that this was not the case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules had only prospective operation.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Nehru vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 19 August, 2008

14. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 to 12 placed reliance upon the decision reported in 1994 6 SCC 151 (State of M.P. and others Vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and others). That was a case where the Government chose to withdraw the earlier notification of selection since it was found that subsequent to such notification better qualifications were prescribed and the Government wanted to go in for fresh selection in accordance with the changed rules and make the final recruitment. Thus the facts in that case disclose that the earlier notification was cancelled since subsequently better qualifications were prescribed. Therefore, in public employment better qualified persons should always be preferred for efficiency in service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that such a situation definitely justified the withdrawal of the earlier notification. Therefore, the said case is no comparison to the case on hand where on the flimsy ground of application of 1:1 ratio, the whole selection process was aborted and appointment of respondents 3 to 12 came to be made. That apart, it is not the case of the Board that 1:1 ratio would enable the Board to go in for better candidates as against the then prescribed rule which provided for the selection to be made from amongst 20 candidates to fill up one single post. It is well known, in the selection process where number of candidates appear for selection, in the process of elimination, the employer will be able to choose the best candidate and that alone would help the establishment to improve its performance. By merely adopting the ratio of 1:1 as against the ratio of 1:20, there would have been no scope for any better selection to be made by the Board in order to state that such a course adopted by the Board cannot be faulted. Therefore, the said decision will have no application to the facts of this case.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - F M Kalifulla - Full Document

Sh. P.B. Singh vs Union Of India Through on 23 September, 2014

"In the case of State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consisting of K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ., had to consider the question whether the State could change a qualification for the recruitment during the process of recruitment which had not resulted into any final decision in favour of any candidate. In paragraph 5 of the Report in this connection it was observed that it is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualification for recruitment. In the case before the Court pursuant to the amended Rules, the Government had withdrawn the earlier notification and wanted to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It was held that this was not the case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules had only prospective operation. The Government was entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State was entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anand Kumar Sharma vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary And Others on 28 May, 2013

"In the case of State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consisting of K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ., had to consider the question whether the State could change a qualification for the recruitment during the process of recruitment which had not resulted into any final decision in favour of any candidate. In paragraph 5 of the Report in this connection it was observed that it is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualification for recruitment. In the case before the Court pursuant to the amended Rules, the Government had withdrawn the earlier notification and wanted to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It was held that this was not the case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules had only prospective operation. The Government was entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State was entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deepak Agrawal & Anr vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 31 March, 2011

"In the case of State of M.P. v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consisting of K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ., had to consider the question whether the State could change a qualification for the recruitment during the process of recruitment which had not resulted into any final decision in favour of any candidate. In paragraph 5 of the Report in this connection it was observed that it is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualification for recruitment. In the case before the Court pursuant to the amended Rules, the Government had withdrawn the earlier notification and wanted to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It was held that this was not the case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules had only prospective operation. The Government was entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State was entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 205 - S S Nijjar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next