Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)
Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs Chanan Ram & Anr on 26 February, 1998 cites

P.Ganeshwar Rao & Co vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 5 September, 1988

It is, therefore, obvious that this Court in P. Ganeshwar's case (supra) itself held that if the recruitment rules underwent amendment prior to actual filling up of the advertised posts the amended rules would apply and it is only because of the word `arising' as found to have been employed in the amended provision that the aforesaid decision was rendered. But even that apart, this decision also referred to existing posts and had nothing to do with posts which had got abolished in the meantime as in the present case. We may now refer to a three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of P. Mahendran and others etc v. State of Karnataka and others [(1990) 1 SCC 411]. In that case a Bench of three learned Judge of this Court consisting of E.S. Venkataramiah. CJ, K.N. Singh and N.M Kasliwel JJ., speaking through Singh J., had to consider the question whether the Karnataka General Service (Motor Vehicles Branch) (Recruitment) Rules, 1962 which had earlier prescribed a diploma in Automobile Engineering or Mechanical Engineering as a minimum qualification for appointment of a Motor Vehicle Inspector, once amended in 1987, could affect the earlier process of selection undertaken in the light of prior unamended rules by the Karnataka Public Service Commission and could make the earlier diploma-holder applicants ineligible only because after amendment of the rules diploma- holders could not apply for such posts. It was found as a matter of fact that the earlier selection process when the unamended rules were holding the field had got completed. The selected candidates were already recommended for appointment and their appointments would have got fructified but for the fact that the High Court of Karnataka in the writ petition intervened and issued stay orders against such appointments. The question was whether after vacating such stay by the High Court when the writ petition was disposed of the selected candidates could be given appointments pursuant to the earlier rules or they could be told off the gates only because as per the new amended rules they being the diploma-holders could not be held eligible to be appointed to such posts. In the light of these peculiar facts of this case it was observed by this Court that the amended rules did not contain any provision enforcing the amended rules with retrospective effect and that the appointments which would have been made available to the selected candidates but for the interim relief granted by the High Court of Karnataka could not be denied to them. We fail to appreciate how the said decision can advance the case of the respondent-writ petitioner when no such occasion arose in the history of this litigation wherein the respondent -writ petitioner never got selected for the said post under the old rules, nor was his appointment intercepted by any stay order of the Court. Save and except inviting applications as per the earlier advertisement no further stop in connection with his recruitment was ever undertaken by the Public Service Commission. Hence, no right accrued to him, save and except, for being considered for such selection if earlier advertisement had survived . In fact Shri Ganpule, learned senior counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner fairly stated that it is not his case that the respondent had any right to be appointed to the said post. His claim was only to be considered for being selected for the said post. As we have seen earlier, once the earlier, advertised posts ceased to exist under the Service Rules there remained no occasion for considering writ petitioner's claim for being considered for appointment to such a non-existing post.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 167 - E S Venkataramiah - Full Document

B.L. Gupta And Another vs M.C.D. on 5 September, 1997

Our attention was also invited to a decision of this Court in the case of B.L. Gupta and Anr V. M.C.D [Civil Appeal NO. 6114 of 1997 etc.] decided on 5th September 1997. In the said decision the question of promotion to the post of Assistant Accountant from the feeder post of Senior Clerk with three years' experience and the other feeder post of Junior Clerk with eight years' experience was on the anvil of scrutiny. For the earlier vacancies of the Assistant Accountants the earlier rules of recruitment were held applicable and for new vacancies the amended rules of 1995 had to be applied. For coming to the said conclusion this Court relied upon some of the earlier decision of this Court to which we have made a reference earlier. We fail to appreciate how this decision also can advance the case of the respondent -writ petitioner. The post of Assistant Accountant was a promotional post which did not cease to exist in the hierarchy of the service echelon with the which this Court was concerned. Hence the ratio for the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No. 6114 of 1997 also cannot be of any assistance to respondent -writ petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 132 - Full Document

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

A.M. Ahmadi, J., speaking for the three-judge Bench in paragraph 7 of the Report relying on an earlier judgment of this Court in case of State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 20] laid down that when the special process of recruitment had not been finalised and culminated into select list the candidate did not have any right to appointment. In this connection it was observed that the recruitment process could be stopped by the Government at any time before a candidate has been appointed. A candidate has no vested right to get the process completed and at the most the Government could be required to justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 762 - D G Palekar - Full Document

State Of M.P vs Raghuveer Singh Yadav on 8 August, 1994

In the case of State of M.P. and others v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and others [(1994) 6 SCC 151] a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consisting of K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ., had to consider the question whether the State could change a qualification for the recruitment during the process of recruitment which had not resulted into any final decision in favour of any candidate. In paragraph 5 of the Report in this connection it was observed that it is settled law that the State had got power to prescribe qualification for recruitment. In the case before the Court pursuant to the amended Rules, the Government had withdrawn the earlier notification and wanted to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It was held that this was not the case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered according to the rules then in vogue. The amended rules had only prospective operation. The Government was entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquire any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State was entitled to with drew the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issued fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 192 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

J & K Public Service Commission vs Dr Narinder Mohan on 7 December, 1993

In the case for J & K Public Service Commission and others v. Dr. Narinder Mohan and others [(1994) 2 SCC 630] another Division Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consisting of K. Ramaswamy and N.P. Singh, JJ., considered the question of interception of recruitment process earlier undertaken by the recruiting agency. In this connection it was observed that the process of selection against existing and anticipated vacancies does not create any right to be appointed to the post which can be enforced by a mandamus. It has to be recalled that in fairness learned senior counsel Shri Ganpule for the respondent-writ petitioner stated that it is not his case that the writ petitioner should be appointed to the advertised post. All that he claimed was his right to be considered for recruitment to the advertised post as per the earlier advertisement date 05th November 1993 Annexure P-1 and nothing more. In our view, the aforesaid limited contention also, on the facts of the present case, cannot be of any assistance to the writ petitioner as the earlier selection process itself had become infructuous and otios on the abolition of the advertised posts, as we have seen earlier. The second point, therefore, will have to be answered in the negative in favour of the appellants and against the respondent-writ petitioner.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 255 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

A.A. Calton vs The Director Of Education & Another on 25 March, 1983

In the same volume at page 33 is found another decision in the case of A.A. Calton v. Director of Education and another [(1983) 3 SCC 33]. It is true that in that case another Division Bench of this Court consisting of E.S. Venkataramiah (as he then was) and A.N.Sen, JJ., held that the process of selection under Section 16-F of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 by way of direct recruitment commenced from the stage of calling for applications for a post up to the date on which the Director became entitled to make a selection under the said provision and the entire process was an integrated one. But even in that case there was no question of the said posts to be filled in by direct recruitment ceasing to exist under the Act and the Rules. Not only that there was an earlier order of the High Court in the proceedings between the contesting parties whereby the High Court had remanded direct recruitment proceedings for being re-considered by the Director and in view of the said order of the High Court which had become final between the parties it could not be said subsequently that the Director could no undertake the exercise of appointment by way of direct recruitment as the Act had got amended in the meantime.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 252 - M P Thakkar - Full Document
1