Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Mohd Rashid vs The Director Local Bodies New ... on 15 January, 2020
In this regard, reference can be
made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd.
Rashid v. The Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat & Ors, :
Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991
(2020) 2 SCC 582, wherein it was held that a candidate does not
have any vested right to seek appointment only for the reason that
his name appears in the merit list. The same view was taken in
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India : (1991) 3 SCC 47, wherein
the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that a candidate
seeking appointment to a civil post cannot be regarded to have
acquired an indefeasible right to appointment in such post merely
because of the appearance of his name in the merit list.
G. Mohan Rao vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 June, 2021
22. It is true as submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioners
that by way of legislative measure, much less an executive act, the
judgment of a court cannot be overruled and it is not permissible
for the legislature to make a decision of the Court ineffective by
removing the material basis of the decision in the manner that the
Court would not have arrived at the same conclusion had the
corrected/ modified position prevailed at the time of rendering
the said earlier decision. [See: G. Mohan Rao v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2022) 12 SCC 696]. However, in the present case, it cannot
be said that there was nullification of the order of the Division
Bench for the reason that the order of the Division Bench did not
traverse beyond the direction of reinitiation of the selection
process and finalizing the process of selection. There was no
further direction to make appointments on the basis of the
selection process. Certainly, to the extent, the respondent SSB did
not finalise the selection process, one may say that the order of the
Division Bench was not complied with. However, in the present
case, it would not make much difference for the reason that even if
the selection process was finalized, the petitioners could not have
been given appointment as there was no such direction from the
CCP(D) No.8/2022 Page 15 of 23
Court. And before, any appointment could be considered the said
policy decision was taken by the Administration on 29.01.2022
notified on 03.02.2022 withdrawing the posts referred to the
Board.
Ram Kishan vs Tarun Bajaj & Ors on 17 January, 2014
In this regard we would like to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and others
: (2014) 16 SCC 204 wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that in order to hold a person guilty of contempt of
court, it has to be proved that the disobedience of the order was
willful and such disobedience was not as a result of some
compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the
contemnor to comply with the order. In such circumstances, the
contemnor cannot be punished. Relevant paragraphs of the said
decision reads as under:
1