Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (1.01 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Bihar And Another vs Madan Mohan Singh And Others on 13 October, 1993
In State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan Singh, this Court
has in terms held that if the advertisement and the
consequent selection process were meant only to fill up a
certain number of vacancies then the merit list will hold
good for the purpose of filling up those notified vacancies
and no further. In that case 32 vacancies were advertised
but a select list of 129 candidates was prepared. A
DINESH KUMAR
2015.07.06 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP-227-2014 (O&M) -18-
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Ishwar Singh Khatri And Ors. on 4 August, 1989
Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri, 1992 Supp (3)
SCC 84, at page 86 :
State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973
In State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha this
Court held: (SCC p. 226, paras 10-11)
"10. E The mere fact that a candidate's name
appears in the list will not entitle him to a
mandamus that he be appointed. Indeed, if the
State Government while making the selection for
appointment had departed from the ranking given in
the list, there would have been a legitimate
grievance on the ground that the State Government
had departed from the rules in this respect. E
Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors vs Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors on 14 September, 2006
In Pitta Naveen Kumar v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti this
Court held: (SCC p. 273, para 32)
"32. E 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
DINESH KUMAR
2015.07.06 11:08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
CWP-227-2014 (O&M) -15-
otherwise."
Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991
CWP-227-2014 (O&M) -13-
This position has been affirmed times without number.
One need only refer the Constitution Bench decision in Shankarsan
Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, wherein, it was observed
as under:
Rakhi Ray & Ors vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors on 1 February, 2010
Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi, (2010) 2 SCC 637, at
page 640 :
Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers' ... vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 10 May, 1994
CWP-227-2014 (O&M) -21-
Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is
neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it
amounts to "improper exercise of power and only in a
rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent
situation, such a rule can be deviated from and such a
deviation is permissible only after adopting policy
decision based on some rationale", otherwise the
exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies
over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of
future vacancies and thus, is not permissible in law.
(Vide Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri, Gujarat State
Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat, State
of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees
Union 1986, Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB and Ashok
Kumar v. Banking Service Recruitment Board.)"
State Of Bihar vs Secretariat Asstt. Successful ... on 8 October, 1993
CWP-227-2014 (O&M) -21-
Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is
neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it
amounts to "improper exercise of power and only in a
rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent
situation, such a rule can be deviated from and such a
deviation is permissible only after adopting policy
decision based on some rationale", otherwise the
exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies
over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of
future vacancies and thus, is not permissible in law.
(Vide Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri, Gujarat State
Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat, State
of Bihar v. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees
Union 1986, Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB and Ashok
Kumar v. Banking Service Recruitment Board.)"