Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.34 seconds)Union Of India & Others vs S. Vinodh Kumar & Others on 18 September, 2007
: (SCC pp. 645-46, para 59)
“59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates
cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course
the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This
position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union
of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC
(L&S) 792] ….
Anupal Singh . vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Through ... on 30 September, 2019
21.A candidate who has participated in the selection process adopted under the 2015
Rules is estopped and has acquiesced himself from questioning it thereafter, as
held by this Court in the case of Anupal Singh (supra):
Union Of India vs G. R. Prabhavalkar & Ors.(With ... on 16 March, 1973
Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. Union of India (1984) 3 SCC 127,
Mohan Karan v. State of U.P. (1998) 3 SCC 444,
Surinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1997) 8 SCC 488,
Anupal Singh v. State of U.P. (2020) 2 SCC 173,
Union of India v. G.R. Prabhavalkar (1973) 4 SCC 183.
S.S. Balu And Anr vs State Of Kerala And Ors on 13 January, 2009
S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala (2009) 2 SCC 479
Arguments of the Respondents
Maya Mathew vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 18 February, 2010
Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala (2010) 4 SCC 498,
V. K. Girija v. Reshma Parayil (2019) 2 SCC 347,
Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat (2020) 4
SCC 702.
Chief Information Commissioner vs High Court Of Gujarat on 4 March, 2020
Maya Mathew v. State of Kerala (2010) 4 SCC 498,
V. K. Girija v. Reshma Parayil (2019) 2 SCC 347,
Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat (2020) 4
SCC 702.
K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
32.The respondents have also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case
of K. Manjusree (supra). However, in our considered view, the facts of the aforesaid
decision are quite different from the present case. A change was introduced for the
first time after the entire process was over, based on the decision made by the Full
Court qua the cut off. Secondly, it is not as if the private respondents were non-
suited from participating in the recruitment process. The principle governing
changing the rules of game would not have any application when the change is with
respect to selection process but not the qualification or eligibility. In other words,
after the advertisement is made followed by an application by a candidate with
further progress, a rule cannot be brought in, disqualifying him to participate in the
selection process. It is only in such cases, the principle aforesaid will have an
application or else it will hamper the power of the employer to recruit a person
suitable for a job.
Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs South East Central Railway on 27 November, 2018
xxx xxx xxx
8.1 An identical question came to be considered by this Court in the case of
Suresh Prasad and Ors. (supra). In the said decision, it is specifically observed
and held that even in case candidates selected for appointment have not joined,
in the absence of any statutory rules to the contrary, the employer is not bound
to offer the unfilled vacancy to the candidates next below the said candidates in
the merit list. It is also further held that in the absence of any provision, the
employer is not bound to prepare a waiting list in addition to the panel of selected
candidates and to appoint the candidates from the waiting list in case the
candidates from the panel do not join.
K.H. Siraj vs High Court Of Kerala & Ors on 23 May, 2006
In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 395 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
1345], it was held as under : (SCC p. 426, para 73)
“73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in
this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn
round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that
the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper.”