Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.25 seconds)
Hari Singh vs Director General Of Sahastra Seema Bal & ... on 10 December, 2019 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, (2006) 3 SCC 330, 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

D.S. Laungia And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 28 September, 1992

"11. The respondent cannot claim parity with D.S. Laungia v. State of Punjab, AIR 1993 P & H 54, in view of the settled legal proposition that Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not envisage negative equality. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud. Article 14 of the Constitution has a positive concept. 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 ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2019 20:24:52 :::HCHP 8 a wrong order. A wrong order/decision in favour of any particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the benefits on the basis of the wrong decision. Even otherwise .
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next