Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
N. Babu, Executive Engineer, K. ... vs T.M. Poulose, Assistant Executive ... on 26 March, 2003 cites

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

Reference in this behalf can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, AIR 1973 S.C. 2260 and Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana, 1977 S.C. 276. In these cases, it was ruled that selection and the availability of the vacancies did not give a right to claim appointment. Thus, if on the date of appointment, the members of scheduled castes were adequately represented in the service, the Board could not have proceeded to appoint them merely because at the time of the issue of the advertisement, on the basis of wrong facts as admitted by the Board itself in the counter affidavit, the committee had found that certain vacancies were available.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 762 - D G Palekar - Full Document

Mani Subrat Jain Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 9 December, 1976

Reference in this behalf can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, AIR 1973 S.C. 2260 and Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana, 1977 S.C. 276. In these cases, it was ruled that selection and the availability of the vacancies did not give a right to claim appointment. Thus, if on the date of appointment, the members of scheduled castes were adequately represented in the service, the Board could not have proceeded to appoint them merely because at the time of the issue of the advertisement, on the basis of wrong facts as admitted by the Board itself in the counter affidavit, the committee had found that certain vacancies were available.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 527 - A N Ray - Full Document

Hira Lal vs District Judge, Ghaziabad & Others on 13 April, 1983

42. Mr. Prasad has also referred to the judgment in Hira Lal v. The District Judge, Ghaziabad and Ors. AIR 1984 S.C. 1212. This was a case where their Lordships of the Supreme Court were considering the implication of the Government order providing for reservation of 18% for scheduled castes. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, it was noticed by their Lordships that the factual position was not clear. It was "not known whether some of the recruits of earlier years already in service belonging to the scheduled castes had come on the basis of overall merit without reference to reservation." In view of this factual position, it was observed that if the provision of reservation has to be kept in view, the petitioner was bound to be recruited. It was a decision on the peculiar facts. It is not an authority for the proposition that the number of persons belonging to the category of scheduled castes have to be seen at the time of advertisement of the posts and not at the time of actual filling up existing vacancies. Still further, in a series of decisions, their Lordships have laid down that mere selection for a post does not given a right to any person to claim appointment. The mere fact that certain candidates had been selected did not confer any right on them to be appointed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - M Rangnath - Full Document
1