Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.21 seconds)
Vikas Gachli vs Competition Commission Of India on 1 September, 2011 cites

State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973

"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 762 - D G Palekar - Full Document

Umesh Chandra Shukla Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 August, 1985

In Umesh Chandra Shukla Vs. UOI & Ors., (1985) 3 SCC 721, two contentions were raised and accepted. Firstly, that the moderation by way of two marks was contrary to law and the High Court had no power to include names of candidates for interview, who had not secured the minimum qualifying marks. Secondly, it was held that in view of Rule 18 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970, the High Court could not have fixed its own minimum marks. It was held that the Rule itself laid down the minimum marks which a candidate should obtain in the written papers or in aggregate to qualify to be a member of the judicial service. Thus the Rule was violated. This is not so in the present case. No statutory rule has been brought to our notice. The terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement and in the instructions have been quoted and explained above. These do not support the contention of the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 277 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991

10. Case of Subhash Chander Marwaha (supra) was referred to by the Constitution Bench in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India (1993) 3 SCC 47 and a distinction was drawn between an eligibility condition and the right to claim appointment. An eligible person cannot claim a right to be appointed on the ground that vacancies exist and they have qualified and have been able to secure the prescribed marks. It is open to the government/authorities to decide LPA 612/2011 Page 9 of 15 how many appointments should be made and it has been expressly ruled that existence of vacancies does not give a legal right to even a selected candidate. Candidates fulfilling the minimum requirements do not have an indefeasible right to seek appointment. They have only the right to be considered and subject to recruitment rules to the contrary, the authorities are under no legal obligation to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, the authorities cannot act in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. It was accordingly held as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1160 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Neelima Shangla Ph.D. Candidate vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 17 September, 1986

"7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatendra Kumar v. State of Punjab.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 458 - O C Reddy - Full Document

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

11. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed in State of U.P.& Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 330; State of LPA 612/2011 Page 10 of 15 Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Chopra, (2007) 8 SCC 161; S.S. Balu and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 479; State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Ors., (2010) 6 SCC 777.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 244 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Jagdish Chopra on 30 August, 2007

11. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has been followed in State of U.P.& Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 330; State of LPA 612/2011 Page 10 of 15 Rajasthan and Ors. Vs. Jagdish Chopra, (2007) 8 SCC 161; S.S. Balu and Anr. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 479; State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Rajkishore Nanda and Ors., (2010) 6 SCC 777.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 60 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next