Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1852 (1.36 seconds)
Documents citing Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991

Ranjeet Singh & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 2 August, 2012

Thus, in view of the aforesaid decisions, if any earlier decision is not cited of larger Bench, then the subsequent judgments are per incuriam and are not binding, on the principle of per incuriam. It appears that several decisions, as stated herein above, like the decision of the Constitutional Bench, rendered in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, as reported in (1991)3 SCC 47, etc. have not been even cited.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - D N Patel - Full Document

Abhishek Gupta And Others vs Jammu And Kashmir Bank Ltd. And Others on 22 March, 2021

Unless the relevant recruitment Rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it was also held in the said judgment that the State does not have any license to act in an arbitrary manner and that WP (C) no. 913/2020 c/w 908/2020 Page 26 of 32 the decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. The High Court observed that there is no bona fide reason for the successor entities of the Electricity Department for not appointing the Respondents. Further, the High Court concluded that it was not the stand of the Appellant that the process of recruitment has been scrapped. The policy decision of the Government dated 19th March, 2001 cancelling all the selections that were made earlier and banning any further recruitment was part of the record which could not have been ignored by the High Court. There was sufficient justification for the Government of Manipur to ban recruitment. The Government was compelled to take such decision in view of the financial crisis. The said decision of the Government cannot be said to be arbitrary under any circumstances. The policy decision of the Government of Manipur dated 19 th March, 2001 was bona fide and the Respondents cannot assert any right for appointment on the basis of the selections conducted in the year 1999."
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - A Magrey - Full Document

Aadi Shakti Pandey And 34 Ors vs Union Of India And 5 Ors on 7 February, 2017

So also this Court in Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, UPSC v. Gaurav Dwivedi, (1999) 5 SCC 180, All India SC & ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen, (2001) 6 SCC 380 and Food Corporation of India v. Bhanu Lodh, (2005) 3 SCC 618 held that mere inclusion of a name in the select list for appointment does not create a right to appointment even against existing vacancies and the State has no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies." (Emphasis supplied)
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Chandra Kumar Pandey Son Of Late ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 June, 2018

15. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of the candidate's name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. The candidate concerned cannot claim that he has been given a hostile discrimination.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - D N Patel - Full Document

Gousia Begum, R.R. Dist 14 Others vs Registrar Administration, High Court ... on 29 December, 2022

In Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh10 after considering the law enunciated in Shankarsan Dash (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held, "12. If we have regard to the above enunciation that a candidate who finds a place in the select list as a candidate selected for appointment to a civil post, does not acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitling him for such appointment and he could be aggrieved by his non-appointment only when the Administration does so either arbitrarily or for no bona fide reasons, it follows as a necessary concomitant that such candidate even if has a legitimate expectation of being appointed in such posts due to his name finding a place in the select list of candidates, cannot claim to have a right to be heard before such select list is cancelled for bona fide and valid reasons and not arbitrarily. In the instant case, 10 (1993) 1 SCC 154 PNR,J & JSR,J WP Nos.12146 and 15644 of 2017
Telangana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

Pushpaben vs Indian on 15 July, 2010

14. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1612, held that appearance of the name of a candidate in the select list does not give him a right of appointment. Mere inclusion of candidate s name in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remain unfilled. The candidate concerned cannot claim that he has been given a hostile discrimination.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - H K Rathod - Full Document

Sh. Chaman Lal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 13 January, 2010

Equity may not be considered a legal ground as part of law but when law is to be applied, one of the factors of consideration would be equity. Applicant, who continuously worked from 1985 till 1994 after following due selection process, non-appointment on regular basis without any justifiable grounds, implies an act of mala fide, which as per the Constitution Bench decision in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 cannot be countenanced in law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 211 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next