Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.30 seconds)
Amber Kachchap vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 September, 2025 cites

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Rajkumar Sharma & Ors on 3 March, 2006

In a recent decision rendered by this Court in State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma [State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma, Page 15 of 17 2025:JHHC:30356-DB (2006) 3 SCC 330 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 565] , this Court once again had to consider the question of filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised. Referring to the various decisions rendered on this issue, this Court held that filling up of vacancies over and above the number of vacancies advertised would be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that selectees could not claim appointments as a matter of right. It was reiterated that mere inclusion of candidates in the select list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled. This Court went on to observe further that even if in some cases appointments had been made by mistake or wrongly, that did not confer any right of appointment to another person, as Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if the State had committed a mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the said mistake."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 244 - A Pasayat - Full Document

T.Lakshmipathi & Ors vs P.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors on 31 March, 2003

(See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., (1996) 7 SCC 426] ; Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35] ; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 801] ; Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services [Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752] ; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh [Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, (1999) 3 SCC 494] ; State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal [State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1171] ; Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] ; Union of India v. International Trading Co. [Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437] and Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority [Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority, (2006) 2 SCC 604] .)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 717 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Basawaraj S/O Narasimlu Waddar vs Basawaraj S/O Adayya Swamy on 10 February, 2009

This Court in Basawaraj v. LAO [Basawaraj v. LAO, (2013) 14 SCC 81] considered this issue and held as under: (SCC p. 85, para 8) '8. It is a settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud, even by extending the wrong decisions made in other cases. The said provision does not envisage Page 9 of 17 2025:JHHC:30356-DB negative equality but has only a positive aspect. Thus, if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some relief/benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such an order does not confer any legal right on others to get the same relief as well. If a wrong is committed in an earlier case, it cannot be perpetuated. Equality is a trite, which cannot be claimed in illegality and therefore, cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality and irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing a similarly wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise, Article 14 cannot be stretched too far for otherwise it would make functioning of administration impossible. (Vide Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh [Chandigarh Admn.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - K Ramanna - Full Document

Kulwinder Pal Singh Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 12 May, 2016

In Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab [Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 102] , this Court while relying upon State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma [State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Sharma, (2006) 3 SCC 330 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 565] , observed as under : (Kulwinder Pal Singh case [Kulwinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2016) 6 SCC 532 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 102] , SCC pp. 539-40, para 16) "16. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the other candidates were appointed in the post against dereserved category, the same benefit should also be extended to the appellants. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equalities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 7118 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Secretary, Jaipur Development ... vs Daulat Mal Jain on 20 September, 1996

(See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., (1996) 7 SCC 426] ; Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35] ; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 801] ; Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services [Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752] ; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh [Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, (1999) 3 SCC 494] ; State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal [State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1171] ; Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] ; Union of India v. International Trading Co. [Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437] and Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority [Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority, (2006) 2 SCC 604] .)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 344 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

The State Of Haryana & Ors vs Ram Kumar Mann on 20 February, 1997

(See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., (1996) 7 SCC 426] ; Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35] ; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 801] ; Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services [Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752] ; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh [Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, (1999) 3 SCC 494] ; State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal [State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1171] ; Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] ; Union of India v. International Trading Co. [Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437] and Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority [Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority, (2006) 2 SCC 604] .)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 254 - Full Document

State Of Punjab And Ors. vs Dr. Rajeev Sarwal on 8 April, 1999

(See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., (1996) 7 SCC 426] ; Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35] ; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 801] ; Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services [Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752] ; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh [Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, (1999) 3 SCC 494] ; State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal [State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1171] ; Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] ; Union of India v. International Trading Co. [Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437] and Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority [Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority, (2006) 2 SCC 604] .)"
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 92 - Full Document

Yogesh Kumar @ Bunty vs State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) on 9 May, 2016

(See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. [Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P., (1996) 7 SCC 426] ; Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain [Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, (1997) 1 SCC 35] ; State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann [State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1997) 3 SCC 321 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 801] ; Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services [Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, (1997) 7 SCC 752] ; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh [Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran Singh, (1999) 3 SCC 494] ; State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal [State of Punjab v. Rajeev Sarwal, (1999) 9 SCC 240 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1171] ; Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] ; Union of India v. International Trading Co. [Union of India v. International Trading Co., (2003) 5 SCC 437] and Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority [Kastha Niwarak Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. Indore Development Authority, (2006) 2 SCC 604] .)"
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 1 - Cited by 44 - Full Document
1   2 Next