Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 36 (0.33 seconds)
Rajesh Yadav & Ors vs N E Rly. on 15 May, 2026 cites

Mukul Saikia & Ors vs State Of Assam & Ors on 18 November, 2008

(See also Asha Kaul v. State of J&K13, Union of India v. S.S. Uppal14, Bihar Public Service Commission v. State of Bihar15, Simanchal Panda v. State of Orissa16, Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh17, Union of India v. Kali Dass Batish18, Divisional Forest Officer v. M. Ramalinga Reddy19, Subha B. Nair v. State of Kerala20, Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam21 and S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala22.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 127 - L S Panta - Full Document

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 RITU any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has RAJ SINGH 24 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. Subhash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986)4 SCC 268 or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (1985)1 SCC 122.
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 RITU any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has RAJ SINGH 24 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. Subhash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986)4 SCC 268 or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (1985)1 SCC 122.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 458 - O C Reddy - 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 RITU any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has RAJ SINGH 24 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. Subhash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986)4 SCC 268 or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (1985)1 SCC 122.
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

Insofar as the reliance placed upon the judgement in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kashyap (supra) is concerned, it has not been disputed before us that the selections in the said case are different from the present one. Pertinently, a categorical finding ought to have been returned by the Tribunal with regard to the applicability of the said judgment in the present case which is seemingly lacking.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 80 - D Gupta - Full Document

State Of Orissa & Anr vs Rajkishore Nanda & Ors Etc. Etc on 3 June, 2010

11. The petitioner's contention would imply that no recruitment exercise can be carried out for a particular post until the entire pool of wait listed or reserve candidates is exhausted, regardless of the number of vacancies that were advertised in the advertisement in question. I find no basis for such a suggestion, which is contrary to the settled law that wait listed candidates can be appointed against vacancies for which they apply, in terms of the recruitment notification. Reference may be made, in this connection, to the observations of the Supreme Court in Mukul Saikia & Ors. v. State of Assam & Ors3 , and State of Orissa & Anr. v. Rajkishore Nanda & Ors4 . In the latter judgment, the Supreme Court has summarised the legal position thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 238 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Ashok Kumar & Ors vs The Chairman, Banking Service ... on 9 November, 1995

"11. It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as "the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution", of those persons who acquired eligibility for the post in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to "improper exercise of power and only RITU in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, RAJ SINGH 25 such a rule can be deviated and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy decision based on some rational", otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, not permissible in law. (Vide State of Biharv. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examinees Union 19865 , Prem Singh v. Haryana SEB6 , Ashok Kumar v. Banking Service Recruitment Board7 , Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab8 and Rakhi Ray v. High Court of Delhi9
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 131 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next