Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 91 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing K.Jayamohan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 25 April, 1997

M.Muthulakshmi vs The State Of Tamilnadu on 26 October, 2018

(xvii) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Jayamohan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 170, held that it is settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right to appointment and it is open to the Government to make the appointment or not. It was further held that even if there is any vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same, but the Appointing Authority must give reasonable explanation for non-appointment.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

F.X.Mahimainathan vs The Director Of Elementary Education on 1 February, 2019

(xvii) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Jayamohan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 170, held that it is settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right to appointment and it is open to the Government to make the appointment or not. It was further held that even if there is any vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same, but the Appointing Authority must give reasonable explanation for non-appointment.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

All India Institute Of Medical Sciences vs Harish Kumar Godhwal And Another on 9 May, 2019

13. Ordinarily a Superior Court, in the exercise of its powers of judicial review, would not interfere with the decision of the employer in making appointment, unless its action or inaction is found to be so arbitrary as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. (Aryavrat Gramin Bank[14]). While the Government / Corporation / Institute is entitled to decide whether or not to make appointment, even if there is a vacancy, and it is not incumbent that it should be filled up, it must, when called upon to do so, furnish reasons for such non-appointment. (K. Jayamohan Vs. State of Kerala and Anr.[19]; and Munna Roy Vs. Union of India and Ors.[20]). Once, it is found that the decision of the Government is based on valid reasons, the Court would not issue a Mandamus to the Government to fill up the vacancies.
Uttarakhand High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - N S Dhanik - Full Document

Akhilesh Kumar Pandey And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 6 August, 2019

The law in this regard is well settled in Asha Kaul (Mrs) and another vs State of Jammu & Kashmir and others) reported in (1993) 2 SCC 577, K.Jayamohan vs State of Kerala and another reported in (1997) 5 SCC 170, Munna Roy vs Union of India and others reported in (2000) 9 SCC 283, All India SC & ST Employees' Association and another reported in (2001) 6 SCC 380, Food Corpn of India and others vs Bhanu Lodh and others reported in (2005) 3 SCC 618, Star Paper Mills Ltd vs State of U.P. And others reported in (2006) 10 SCC 201.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Inturi Rama Rao vs M/O Law And Justice And Company Affairs on 20 March, 2019

17. However, what is of importance is what the Supreme Court recently said in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and others, (2008) 1 SCC 456 that if a vacancy exists and it is not filled up, there must be some reasonable explanation for not doing so. In coming to this conclusion, the Supreme Court relied upon K. Jayamohan v. State of Kerala, (1997) 5 SCC 170 and Munna Roy v. Union of India, (2000) 9 SCC 283.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr.G.Geetha vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 6 June, 2022

“9. In the aforementioned situation, in our opinion, he did not have any legal right to be appointed. Life of a panel, it is well known, remains valid for a year. Once it lapses, unless an appropriate order is issued by the State, no appointment can be made out of the said panel.” .......It was further held : (SCC p. 565, para 13) “13. The decisions noticed hereinbefore are authorities for the proposition that even the wait list must be acted upon having regard to the terms of the advertisement and in any event cannot remain operative beyond the prescribed period.” b. K. Jayamohan v. State of Kerala reported in [(1997) 5 SCC 170 :
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

P. Pandeeswari vs The Principal Secretary on 4 August, 2022

“(xvii) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.Jayamohan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1997) 5 SCC 170, held that it is settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute right to appointment and it is open to the Government to make the appointment or not. It was further held that even if there is any vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same, but the Appointing Authority must give reasonable explanation for non-appointment.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

Renu Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Others on 12 February, 2001

(57). In the instant case, as the select list expired long back, no appointment can be made now, Moreso, making such appointment would be violative of Article 16 of the Constitution as it would amount to filling the future vacancy over and above the posts advertised. (Vide Jitender Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors (60); State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees Union & Ors. (61); Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers Association vs. State of Gujarat & Ors, (62); State of Bihar & Anr. vs. Madan MohanSingh (63); K. Jayamohan vs. State of Kerala & Ors. (64); Sanjoy Bhattarcharjee vs. Union of India & Ors. (65); Surinder Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (66) and Pradip Gogoi & Ors. vs. State of Assam & Ors, (67).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 65 - Cited by 7 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next