Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)
Chinmay Bhakta vs The Central Coalfield Limited (A ... on 13 May, 2024 cites

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

"7. 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 State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 762 - D G Palekar - Full Document

Neelima Shangla Ph.D. Candidate vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 17 September, 1986

"7. 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 State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 458 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Ramesh Ram vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 July, 2014

6. It is well settled principle of law that a person does not have any vested right of appointment. Even selectee has no indefeasible right to appointment nor is State under duty to fill up vacancies. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Lt. CDR. M. Ramesh versus Union of India and Others reported in (2018) 16 SCC 195 while referring to the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court in other cases, at paragraphs 21 and 22 thereof, has held as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 10 - K Gambhir - Full Document

Jai Singh Dalal And Ors. vs State Of Haryana And Anr. on 18 December, 1992

21. The first issue that arises is whether the petitioners have any vested right to claim that the result must be declared and if the petitioners are selected, they should be appointed. This Court in Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana held that merely because the Government had sent a requisition to UPSC to select the candidates for appointments, did not create any vested right in the candidate called for the interview to be appointed. It was also held that the authority which has the power to specify the method of recruitment must be deemed to have the power to revise and substitute the same. The Court, however, also laid down that at best the Government may be required to justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. This view has been followed in a large number of cases.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 357 - Full Document

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

In Vijay Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Patna, this Court held that there is a distinction between selection and appointment. It was held that a person who is successful in the selection process, does not acquire any right to be appointed automatically. Such a person has no indefeasible right of appointment. 22. It is, thus, well settled that merely because a person has been selected does not given that person an indefeasible right of claiming appointment. As far as the present cases are concerned, results have not been declared and even the selection process is not complete. As such, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioners have no enforceable right to claim that the result should be declared or that they should be appointed if found meritorious.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors vs Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors on 14 September, 2006

In "Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors. v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors." 2006 (10) SCC 261 the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the State as an employer has a right to fill up all the posts or not to fill up them and unless a 11 LPA No. 35 of 2024 & Batch cases discrimination is made in filling up the vacancies or arbitrariness is manifest, no candidate shall have any legal right for a writ. Much before that, in "Shankarsan Das" the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 173 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Jatinder Kumar & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 28 September, 1984

"7. 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 State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 271 - R B Misra - Full Document

Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs South East Central Railway on 27 November, 2018

In "Dinesh Kumar Kashyap v. South East Central Railway" (2019) 12 SCC 798 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that those who were successful and declared pass would have a reasonable expectation that they shall be appointed. In our opinion, the appellants may not have any vested right but the C.C.L should give some justifiable non-arbitrary reason for not filling up the posts.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 80 - D Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next