Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (1.33 seconds)
Rash Pal Singh And Ors vs Kamal Kishore And Ors on 28 February, 2017 cites

N.T. Bevin Kath Etc vs Karnataka Public Service Commission ... on 30 March, 1990

15. The reference to the decision in the case of N. T. Devin Katti and others (supra) is of no assistance to the respondents as in the aforesaid case, it has been held that a candidate on making application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any vested right of selection but if he is eligible and is otherwise qualified in accordance with the relevant rules and the terms contained in the advertisement, he does acquire a vested right of being considered for selection. In the instant case, it has been already stated that the advertisement notification was withdrawn, therefore, the aforesaid decision is of no assistance to the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 313 - K N Singh - Full Document

Superintendent And Remembrancer Of ... vs Girish Kumar Navalakha & Ors on 3 March, 1975

14. At this stage, we may advert to the decisions referred by learned senior counsel for the respondents. State of Gujarat and anr. vs. The Asarva Mills ltd. Ahmedabad and anr. (supra), is an authority for the proposition that if law takes away or abridges the fundamental rights of a citizen under Article 19, then it would not be void and non-est as respects non-citizens. Therefore, the aforesaid decision has no application to the fact situation of the case. Similarly, reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of The Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal (supra) is of no assistance to the respondents as the same inter alia deals with the presumption of constitutionality of the statutes and concept of classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 32 - K K Mathew - Full Document

S.T. Sadiq vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 4 February, 2015

The decision referred to in the case of S. S. Bola and others (supra) is an authority for the proposition that an Act should have retrospective effect without affecting any fundamental right or vested or accrued right. In the instant case, it has been already held that the respondents have no vested right, therefore, the aforesaid decision has no application to the obtaining factual matrix of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 13 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Kulwinder Pal Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 12 May, 2016

In Kulwinder Pal Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2016) 16 6 SCC 532, it has been held that even if name of a candidate finds place in the select list, it does not give indefeasible right to appointment and it is always open to the Government not to fill up the vacancies. However, the aforesaid decision has to be reasonable and not arbitrary.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 7118 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Vijay Kumar Mishra And Anr vs High Court Of Judicature At Patna To And ... on 9 August, 2016

The Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar Mishra vs. High Court Judicature at Patna, (2016) 9 SCC 313 has held that the recruitment is the initial process, which may reach to eventual appointment and appointment means 17 actual act of posting a person to a particular office. It has further been held that empanelment of candidates at the best is a condition of eligibility for the process of appointment but the same by itself does not amount to selection or create any vested right for appointment. In the instant case, the candidates had merely responded to the Advertisement Notification dated 23.05.2013 and they were neither selected nor were empanelled. Therefore, the question of accrual of any vested right in the candidates in the fact situation of the case does not arise. Besides that, it is pertinent to reiterate that no challenge to the communication dated 16.05.2014 has been made by the candidates by which 1651 posts of Assistant Professor, which were advertised vide Advertisement Notification dated 29.05.2013, were withdrawn. For the aforesaid reasons, second issue is answered in the negative.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Rayala Corporation (P) Ltd. & Ors vs Director Of Enforcement, New Delhi on 23 July, 1969

In Royala Corporation vs. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1970 SC 494, 9.403 (15): (1969) 2 SCC 412, which was followed in Kolhapur Canesugar Works ltd. Vs. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 811, pp 819 820: (2000) 2 SCC 536, and Shiv Shakti Co op. Housing Society Nagpur Swaraj Developer, AIR 2003 SC 2434 p. 2443 : (2003) 6 SCC 659; there are observations that omission of a provision is different from repeal. It 19 is submitted that this view is not correct and needs reconsideration on this point. See. Further, pp. 709/710.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 221 - V Bhargava - Full Document
1   2 3 Next