Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)K.Jayamohan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 25 April, 1997
“(xvii) Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
K.Jayamohan vs. State of Kerala, reported in (1997)
5 SCC 170, held that it is settled legal position that
merely because a candidate is selected and kept in
the waiting list, he does not acquire any absolute
right to appointment and it is open to the
Government to make the appointment or not. It was
further held that even if there is any vacancy, it is not
incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same,
but the Appointing Authority must give reasonable
explanation for non-appointment.
All India Sc & St Employees Assn.& Anr vs A. Arthur Jeen & Ors on 12 April, 2001
Further, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India SC& ST
Employees' Assn., vs. A.Arthur Jeen, reported in
(2001) 6 SCC 380, held that merely because the
names of the candidates were included in the panel
indicating their provisional selection, they did not
acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even
against the existing vacancies and the State is under
no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies as
laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after referring to earlier cases in
Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, reported in
(1991) 3 SCC 47. Thus, the rules of the selection
have not been changed in the midst of the selection
process nor there is any arbitrariness in denying
employment to the petitioners.”
Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991
Further, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in All India SC& ST
Employees' Assn., vs. A.Arthur Jeen, reported in
(2001) 6 SCC 380, held that merely because the
names of the candidates were included in the panel
indicating their provisional selection, they did not
acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even
against the existing vacancies and the State is under
no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies as
laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court after referring to earlier cases in
Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India, reported in
(1991) 3 SCC 47. Thus, the rules of the selection
have not been changed in the midst of the selection
process nor there is any arbitrariness in denying
employment to the petitioners.”
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Rajkishore Nanda & Ors Etc. Etc on 3 June, 2010
In State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda [(2010) 6 SCC 777], the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under: (SCC p.783, paras 14 & 16) :
T.S.Anbarasu vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 November, 2015
In T.S.Anbarasu v. The State of
Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government School reported
in (2015) 8 MLJ 385, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5/12
W.P.Nos. 19815 & 19816 of 2022
observed as under:
Kulwinder Pal Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 12 May, 2016
In Kulwinder Pal Singh and Another v. State of Punjab and
Others reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
paragraph No.10 had held as follows:
Food Corporation Of India & Ors vs Bhanu Lodh & Ors on 24 February, 2005
“10.It is fairly well settled that merely because
the name of a candidate finds place in the select list,
it would not give him indefeasible right to get an
appointment as well. The name of a candidate may
appear in the merit list but he has no indefeasible
right to an appointment (vide Food Corporation of
India v. Bhanu Lodh, All India SC & ST Employees
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7/12
W.P.Nos. 19815 & 19816 of 2022
Assn., v.A.Arthur Jeen and UPSC v.Gaurav Dwivedi.)
Karnataka Power Corporation Ltd ... vs K. Thangappan & Anr on 4 April, 2006
In Karnataka Power Corpn. Ltd. v. K.Thangappan reported in
(2006) 4 SCC 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, at Paragraph 6, held as
follows:
Chennai Metropolitan Water ... vs T.T. Murali Babu on 10 February, 2014
14. Keeping in mind the ratio laid down in the above cited
decisions, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.