Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.42 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mrs. Maneka Gandhi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 25 January, 1978
11. Same views were echoed in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, AIR 1978 SC 597 and also in the case of Ajay Hasia etc v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, AIR 1981 SC 486.
Virender S. Hooda & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 1999
8. Before proceeding further, we deem it necessary 10 make a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the appeal filed by Virender S. Hooda and others v. State of Haryana and another (Civil Appeal No. 2286 of 1999 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 478 of 1998) decided on 3.4.1999 : 1999(2) SCT 652 (SC). While allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed as under :-
Krishna Kumari & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors. on 27 November, 1998
In this connection, reference with advantage can be made to decision of this Court in the case of Krishna Kumar v. State of Haryana and others, 1992(1) Recent Services Judgments 173. In the cited case, this Court held as under :- "Though by mere selection by the Public Service Commission, no candidate could claim as a matter of right to the appointment to the post, but if candidate lower in selection list is appointed, the candidate higher in the selection list would be entitled to seek appointment from the date candidate lower in rank was appointed. Otherwise that would amount to denial to such person equality before law and it would be a case of discrimination. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution have been violated in not appointing the petitioners to the posts of Assistant District Attorneys..."
Hoshiar Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 August, 1993
14. Another contention raised was that, in any case, appointment cannot be made beyond the advertised vacancies. Reliance in this regard was placed on the
well known decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hoshiar Singh v. State of Haryana, 1993(5) SLR 36 : 1993(4) SCT 291 (SC). Though the principle of law is not in controversy, but the peculiar facts cannot be ignored. Before the altar of justice, the said principle must take a hind seat. Certain persons who were below the petitioners in merit had been appointed. In that event, even they were, as per respondents, outside the advertised posts. If this is the situation, the right of the petitioners could not be defeated.
E. P. Royappa vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 23 November, 1973
In the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and another, AIR 1974 SC 555, new ice was broken and it was held that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution strike at the State arbitrariness in action and ensure fairness and equality in treatment. The State action should be based on valid relevant principles. The Supreme Court went on to explain Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and held as under :-
Khushi Ram vs The Banking Service Recruitment Board ... on 4 July, 1994
17. Once again in the case of Khushi Ram v. Banking Service Recruitment Board, 1995(1) Recent Services Judgments 550 : 1994(4) SCT 146 (P&H), a similar contention was raised.
1