Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Maharashtra vs Digambar on 12 May, 1995
25. A similar contention was considered by this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar [1995 (4) SCC 683]. This Court held:
Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991
In the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47, Honble Supreme Court viewed that even the selection of a candidate does not confer upon him any right of appointment to the post for which he is selected. However, in the present case, we do not find any firm and confident stand of the respondents regarding ineligibility of Stenographer Grades II and III for promotion as Inspectors.
State Of West Bengal And Ors vs Debasish Mukherjee And Ors on 14 September, 2011
13. It is settled position of law that there is no principle of negative equality. The Honble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & others v. Debasish Mukherjee & others, JT 2011 (11) SC 1 viewed as under:
Gursharan Singh & Ors. Etc. Etc vs New Delhi Municipal Committee & Ors on 2 February, 1996
21. It is now well settled that guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or an irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Courts and Tribunals to require the state to commit the same irregularity or illegality in their favour on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegality or arbitrarily extended to others (See: Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Administration (JT 1996 (1)SC 647; 1996 (2) SCC 459),Union of India v.Krloskar Pneumatics Ltd. (JT 1996 (5)SC 26), Union of India v. International Trading Co. (JT 2003 (4) SC 549: 2003 (5) SCC 437) and State of Bihar Kameshwar Prasad Singh (JT 2000 (5) SC 389: 2000 (9) SCC 94). This question was exhaustively considered in Chandigarh Administration v.Jagjit Singh (JT 1995 (1) SC 445), wherein this Court explained the legal position thus:
Harish Chand Bhatt S/O Shri M L Bhatt vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 13 August, 2009
10. Learned counsel for the respondents has also placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in Harish Chand Bhatt v. Union of India & others (OA-2553/2009) decided on 26.7.2010 wherein it is viewed that no amendment of the Recruitment Rules under which the applicants were made eligible for promotion had been mentioned. Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the said order read as under:-
1