Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.45 seconds)
East Coast Railway & Anr vs Mahadev Appa Rao & Ors on 7 July, 2010 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Tarun K. Singh And Ors. on 10 January, 2001

11. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Tarun K. Singh and Ors. (2003) 11 SCC 768, Mr. Malhotra all the same argued that the challenge to the order cancelling the test was legally untenable as no candidate had any legally enforceable right to any post until he was selected and an order of appointment issued in his favour. Cancellation of the selection process on the ground of malpractices could not, therefore, be subjected to judicial scrutiny before a Writ Court, at the instance of a candidate who had not even found a place in the select list.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991

12. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 had an occasion to examine whether a candidate seeking appointment to a civil post can be regarded to have acquired an indefeasible right to appointment again such post merely because his name appeared in the merit list of candidates for such post. Answering the question in the negative this Court observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1160 - L M Sharma - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973

"It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. 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 does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in the State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha 1974 (3) SCC 220;
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 762 - D G Palekar - Full Document

Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992

22. Mr. Malhotra's contention that the order was passed entirely on the basis of the complaint received from the unsuccessful candidates is also of no assistance. The fact that some representations were received against the test or the procedure followed for the same could not by itself justify cancellation of the test unless the authority concerned applied its mind to the allegations levelled by the persons making the representation and came to the conclusion that the grievance made in the complaint was not without merit. If a test is cancelled just because some complaints against the same have been made howsoever frivolous, it may lead to a situation where no selection process can be finalized as those who fail to qualify can always make a grievance against the test or its fairness. What is important is that once a complaint or representation is received the competent authority applies its mind to the same and records reasons why in its opinion it is necessary to cancel the examination in the interest of purity of the selection process or with a view to preventing injustice or prejudice to 19 those who have appeared in the same. That is precisely what had happened in Dilbagh Singh's case (supra). The examination was cancelled upon an inquiry into the allegations of unjust, arbitrary and dubious selection list prepared by the Selection Board in which the allegations were found to be correct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 160 - Full Document

Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Etc. Etc vs State Of U.P. And Ors on 20 September, 1990

In Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (AIR 1991 SC 537), this Court explained that the true import of the expression "arbitrariness" is more easily visualized than precisely stated or defined and that whether or not an act is arbitrary would be determined on the facts and circumstances of a given case. This Court observed:
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1487 - J S Verma - Full Document
1   2 Next