Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Praveen Kumar Babbar And Ors. vs High Court Of Delhi Through Registrar ... on 27 August, 2007 cites

State Of Bihar And Another vs Madan Mohan Singh And Others on 13 October, 1993

12. We have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. v. Madan Mohan Singh and Ors. 1994 Supp (3) SCC 308. It was a case of appointment of Additional District & Sessions Judge in the High Court of Patna, which judgment was taken note of in the case of Gajender Pal Vohra. From the reading of the judgment, it does not appear in the notification/advertisement inviting applications, number of available vacancies, which were 32, were mentioned therein. However, the court found that since the selection process was meant only for 32 vacancies, appointment to that extent only could be made.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 96 - Full Document

State Of Bihar And Others vs The Secretariat Assistant Successful ... on 8 November, 1993

In State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Uniion (supra), advertisement inviting applications for vacancies falling up to 1985-86 was issued in the year 1985. Examination was held in November, 1987 and the result published in July, 1990. The empanelled candidates who were left out after filling up vacancies up to 1985-86 approached the High Court seeking appointment against vacancies available on the date of the publication of the result as well as the vacancies arising up to 1991. The High Court allowed the prayer. In an appeal before the Supreme Court their Lordships held that the direction given by the High Court was not proper and could not be sustained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 142 - M N Venkatachaliah - Full Document

Prem Prakash vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 August, 1984

14. The direction made by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained for several reasons. Firstly, such a direction would tantamount to usurping the power which the Constitution has chosen to vest exclusively in the Chief Justice. Secondly, it is not in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court consistently in the cases referred to hereinabove. Thirdly, the selection process initiated in the year 1990 for only two vacancies had a limited zone of consideration by including therein a limited number of employees, eligible till then; while a selection process initiated with five vacancies would have provided a wider zone of consideration from amongst the eligible employees by reference to the date on which 5 vacancies became available. The right of employees to be considered for selection who had become eligible by the time five vacancies became available has been taken away for no fault of theirs. Fourthly, the right of the employer i.e. the High Court to have a wider number of eligible candidates to choose from has been prejudiced.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 50 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya ,& Gramin Bank ... vs Chand Behari Kapoor & Ors. & Kantya ... on 9 September, 1998

15. There is yet another reason which would deprive the petitioners of the relief they intend to claim. Though no select list is prepared, even if it is presumed that all those who qualified the test came in the select list, they would not get automatic right to be appointed to the post of SJA inasmuch as it is a fundamental principle settled by the Supreme Court that no legal right to demand appointment even upon selection and placement of their names in the select list arises in favor of such persons {See - Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya, Gramin Bank v. Chand Behari Kapoor and Ors. }.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 74 - S V Manohar - Full Document
1