Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.71 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Post Graduate Institute Ofmedical ... vs K.L.Narasimhan & Anr. Etc on 2 May, 1997
20. It is therefore necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh and others v. K.L.Narasimhan and another reported in (1997) 6 SCCC 283. The following passage found in paragraph 16 may be usefully extracted below:
Divisional Forests Officer And Ors vs M. Ramalinga Reddy on 10 April, 2007
22.It is also necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Divisional Forest Officer and others v. M.Ramalinga Reddy reported in (2007) 9 SCC 286, wherein it was held that if an appointment was not made pursuant to any selection if no offer of appointment was issued, the Court cannot grant any direction to give such appointment.
State Of M.P. & Ors vs Sanjay Kumar Pathak & Ors on 10 October, 2007
23.Subsequently, in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and others reported in (2008) 1 SCC 456, the Supreme Court held that selected candidates do not have a legal right and the Court in the absence of any legal right cannot act on the basis of sympathy alone. In paragraphs 24 to 26, it was observed as follows:-
Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors vs Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors on 14 September, 2006
"24.In Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti this Court observed:(SCC p.273, para 32)
"32. The legal position obtaining in this behalf is not in dispute. A candidate does not have any legal right to be appointed. He in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India has only a right to be considered therefor. Consideration of the case of an individual candidate although ordinarily is required to be made in terms of the extant rules but strict adherence thereto would be necessary in a case where the rules operate only to the disadvantage of the candidates concerned and not otherwise."
Ramakrishna Kamat & Ors vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 5 February, 2003
26.In Ramakrishna Kamat v. State of Karnataka albeit in the light of right of regularisation in service, this Court opined: (SCC p.378, para 7)
"7. ... It is clear from the order of the learned Single Judge and looking to the very directions given, a very sympathetic view was taken. We do not find it either just or proper to show any further sympathy in the given facts and circumstances of the case. While being sympathetic to the persons who come before the Court the Courts cannot at the same time be unsympathetic to the large number of eligible persons waiting for a long time in a long queue seeking employment."
M/S Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Ram Lal & Ors on 25 January, 2005
(See also Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal, State of Bihar v.Amrendra Kumar Mishra, Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra and State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi)" (Emphasis added)
Purushottam vs Chairman, M.S.E.B. And Anr. on 11 May, 1999
"16. ... This question was considered in G.S.Gill case. Therein, the High Court has given direction to dereserve the post and to throw open the same to the general candidates.
State Of Karnataka & Ors vs Ameerbi & Ors on 7 December, 2006
(See also Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal, State of Bihar v.Amrendra Kumar Mishra, Regional Manager, SBI v. Mahatma Mishra and State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi)" (Emphasis added)