Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.37 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Kerala vs Kumari T. P. Roshana & Anr on 17 January, 1979
Reliance has also been placed on the decision of State of Kerala vs Kumari T.P. Roshana and another (1979) 1 SCC 572 in which benefit was ordered even to the candidates who were not the parties before the court. The aforesaid is salutary rule which cannot be disputed, however, it depends upon the nature of the right agitated whether the relief granted to one set of persons should be extended to others also. The aforesaid decision is of no help to the petitioners.
Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991
The decision in Shankarsan Dash vs Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 has also been relied upon in which the Apex court laid down that candidates included in merit list has no indefeasible right to appointment even if a vacancy exists. The State while filling up the vacancies has to act bonafidely and not arbitrarily. In the instant case, the advertisement under which the petitioners have applied and appointed on emergency basis and vacancies were filled subsequently several times by RPSC in the circumstances, the State cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily.
State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Harish Chandra Sharma And Ors. on 20 July, 2006
Counsel has also relied on the decision of State of Rajasthan and others vs. Subhash Chandra Sharma and others D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.605/1998 decided on 16.11.1998 along with three other matters by the Division Bench of this court in which it has been observed that if the reserve list is to be operated, it has to be operated in order of merit. However, in the case of Pramod Kumar Mishra while granting relief it was confined to the petitioners only and not to the others.
Neelima Shangla Ph.D. Candidate vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 17 September, 1986
In Miss Neelima Shangla vs State of Haryana and others (1986) 4 SCC 268, the Apex Court has laid down that petitioners found entitled to be appointed against the post kept vacant pursuant to Court's interim order, other successful candidates though similarly situated but in view of their failure to question the selection and lapse of two years they cannot be held entitled to a general order for appointing all of them thereby upsetting subsequent selection and creating confusion and administrative chaos.
Surinder Singh And Ors. Etc vs State Of Punjab And Anr. Etc on 27 August, 1997
Mr. S.N. Kumawat, Addl. Advocate General has relied upon the judgment Surinder Singh and others vs State of Punjab and another (1997) 8 SCC 488 in which it has been laid down that waiting list cannot be used as a perennial source of recruitment for filling up the vacancies not advertised. The candidates in the waiting list have no vested right to be appointed except to the limited extent when a candidate selected against the existing vacancy does not join for some reason and waiting list is still operative. The candidates included in the waiting list cannot claim appointment on the ground that the vacancies were not worked out properly. In the instant case 59 vacancies were advertised against which 118 appointments have been made. Waiting list was not alive when the writ petitions were filed. Thus, the petitioners cannot have any vested right. Excess appointments over and above the vacancies advertised, normally is not permissible but a policy decision can be taken to make excess appointment in rare and exceptional circumstances and in emergent situation. In the instant case, as the regular selection have been made number of times, emergent appointment cannot be ordered in view of the subsequent events which have been taken place and list of 1992 cannot be said to be operative.
Secretary, A.P. Public Service ... vs B. Swapna And Ors on 16 March, 2005
In Secretary A. P. Public Service Commission vs B. Swapna and others (2005) 4 SCC 154 relied upon by the respondents, the Apex Court has laid down that when the Commission has directed freezing of the rank list and fresh advertisement to be made. Thus the vacancies could not be filled up selecting incumbents from the previous list.
Ashok Alias Somanna Gowda And Anr vs State Of Karnataka By Its Chief Secy. And ... on 11 October, 1991
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants has relied upon the decision of Sri Ashok alias Somanna Gowda and another vs State of Karnataka and others (AIR 1992 SC 80) in which the Apex Court has laid down law in the context of only two candidates aggrieved by appointments who secured higher marks as compared to other petitioners approached the Administrative Tribunal in time for seeking relief. The appointments were made four years back. The Supreme court did not feel inclined to grant relief to others not approaching for redress within reasonable time. The decision is of no help to the petitioners rather it defeats cause of those petitioners who had approached the court belatedly after several years.
Jitendra Kumar & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 11 December, 2007
In Jitendra Kumar and others vs Stae of Haryana and another (2008) 2 SCC 161, the Apex Court laid down that the excess appointments against advertised posts cannot be made in the context of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and Allied Service and Other Services Common/ Combined Examination) Act, 2002.