Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)Mahesh Chand Garg vs Rsrtc Jaipur & Ors on 4 August, 2009
The position of fact is similar in the case of Ramesh Chand versus RSRTC (supra) wherein after finalisation of the result and appointment, the question of correctness of the answers was raised. Therein, interference in the appointments was not made only for the reason that it will unsettle the selection and appointment of the candidates already appointed and were not party to the litigation.
State Of Raj And Ors vs Vikas Kumar Agarwal And Ors on 2 July, 2013
Mr Kumawat submits that as per the NCTE Regulations, a candidate is required to obtain minimum qualifying marks in RTET to become eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr III. After revision of result of the RTET, few candidates earlier declared successful became unsuccessful. They are not possessing required minimum qualifying marks of the respective category now, though as per decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of State of Rajasthan & ors versus Vikas Kumar, everybody is required to possess 60% marks in RTET. The issue aforesaid is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The open category candidate having secured less than 60% marks in RTET is not eligible for appointment. For other categories, it should not be less than required for that category. They cannot be continued if become ineligible. Therefore, interference in the termination of such candidates would mean to continue services of the candidates though not eligible for appointment.
Vinodan T. & Ors vs University Of Calicut & Ors on 26 April, 2002
...It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bonafide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (See: Vinodan T. and Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 726; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667)....
State Of U.P vs Neeraj Awasthi & Others on 16 December, 2005
...It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bonafide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (See: Vinodan T. and Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 726; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667)....
Babita Prasad And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 8 December, 1992
The other judgment relied upon is in the case of Sabita Prasad & ors versus State of Bihar & ors [1992(1)PLJR62]. Therein, a prayer was made to oust those who were earlier appointed as Teachers but after the judgment of the High Court, could not find place in the merit list so as to continue in service. The High Court, though saved their appointment as they were not party to the litigation but then facts remained that even after change of result, the candidates continued in service.
District Collector And Chairman ... vs M. Tripura Sundari Devi on 20 April, 1990
20.The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or malafide. (See: District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655, P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Ors (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Union of India and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100). It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates.
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
20.The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or malafide. (See: District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655, P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Ors (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Union of India and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100). It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates.
Union Of India & Ors vs M. Bhaskaran on 30 October, 1995
20.The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or malafide. (See: District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655, P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Ors (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Union of India and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100). It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates.
Hoshiar Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 25 August, 1993
If a view is taken to direct the respondents to adjust those who have already been appointed against future vacancies, then equity in favour of such candidates would be at the cost of meritorious candidates of next recruitment thus, under all circumstances, a direction to continue less meritorious candidates would be proper or not, needs to be considered. The reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hoshiar Singh versus State of Haryana & ors [AIR 1993 SC 2606] would be relevant and para 10 thereof is quoted hereasunder-