Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.30 seconds)State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973
In State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Others,
(supra) 15 vacancies of Subordinate Judges were advertised, and
out of the selection list only 7, who had secured more than 55%
marks, were appointed, although under the relevant rules the
eligibility condition required only 45% marks. Since the High
Court had recommended earlier, to the Punjab Government that
only the candidates securing 55% marks or more should be
appointed as Subordinate Judges, the other candidates included in
the select list were not appointed. They filed a writ petition before
the High Court claiming a right of being appointed on the ground
that vacancies existed and they were qualified and were found
suitable. The writ application was allowed. While reversing the
decision of the High Court, it was observed by this Court that it
was open to the Government to decide how MANY
appointments should be made and although the High Court had
appreciated the position correctly, it had ``somehow persuaded
itself to spell out a right in the candidates because in fact there
were 15 vacancies''. It was expressly ruled that the existence of
vacancies does not give a legal right to a selected candidate.
Neelima Shangla Ph.D. Candidate vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 17 September, 1986
It is true that the claim of the petitioner in the case
of Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana was allowed by this
Court but, not on the ground that she had acquired any right by
her selection and existence of vacancies. The fact was that the
matter had been referred to the Public Service Commission which
sent to the Government only the names of 17 candidates
belonging to the general category on the assumption that only 17
posts were to be filled up. The Government accordingly made
only 17 appointments and stated before the Court that they were
unable to select and appoint more candidates as the Commission
had not recommended any other candidate. In this background it
was observed that it is, of course, open to the Government not to
Page 12 of 26
Downloaded on : Wed Mar 16 23:50:56 IST 2022
C/SCA/8551/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/03/2022
fill up all the vacancies for a valid reason, but the selection cannot
be arbitrarily restricted to a few candidates notwithstanding the
number of vacancies and the availability of qualified candidates;
and there must be a conscious application of mind by the
Government and the High Court before the number of persons
selected for appointment is restricted. The fact that it was not for
the Public Service Commission to take a decision in this regard
was emphasised in this judgment. None of these decisions,
therefore, supports the appellant."
Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors vs Malkiat Singh on 11 October, 2004
6.4 At this stage, the Court faced with competing claims of the petitioner
and the respondent No.4, more particularly since the Court was of the
prima facie opinion that there appears to be merit in contentions of both the
petitioner and the respondent No.4, had called upon the learned Advocates
to suggest a via media whereby the competing claims of both the parties
could be accommodated. Such a suggestion though agreed to by the learned
Advocates for the petitioner and the respondent No.4, had been vehemently
opposed by the learned AGP Ms. Dharitri Pancholi. Learned AGP would
submit that since competing claims have been made by the petitioner and
respondent No.4, this Court may decide the legality and validity of such
claims. Learned AGP Ms. Pancholi would further submit that none of the
Page 6 of 26
Downloaded on : Wed Mar 16 23:50:56 IST 2022
C/SCA/8551/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/03/2022
parties i.e. petitioner as well as respondent No.4 have acquired any
indefeasible right for appointment. Learned AGP would submit that the
petitioner as well as respondent No.4, have their names figured in the select
list, before the revised result published on 23.01.2020, it was the petitioner's
name which was in the select list and after the revised result, name of the
respondent No.4 figured in the select list. Learned AGP Ms. Pancholi would
submit that law on this issue is well settled inasmuch as successful
candidates have got no right of appointment merely because their names
figured in the select list. Learned AGP would rely upon the decisions of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Police and Another Vs.
Umesh Kumar, reported in 2020 (10) SCC 448; State of Haryana Vs. Subash
Chander Marwaha and others reported in 1974 (3) SCC 220; Shankarsan
Dash vs Union Of India, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47; All India ST and SC
Employees Association Vs. A. Arthur Jeen, reported in 2001(6) SCC 380
and Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Malkiat Singh, reported in 2005(9)
SCC 22.
Jitendra Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 17 March, 2010
Similarly, the claim of some of the candidates selected for
appointment, who were petitioners in Jitendra Kumar and Others
v. State of Punjab and Others, was turned down holding that it
was open to the Government to decide how many appointments
would be made. The plea of arbitrariness was rejected in view of
the facts of the case and it was had that the candidates did not
acquire any right merely by applying for selection or even after
selection.
Ramesh Chandra Sankla Etc vs Vikram Cement Etc on 8 July, 2008
20. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to the decision
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ramesh Chandra Sankla and others
Vs. Vikram Cement and others , reported in (2008) 14 SCC 58. Para 98 of
the said decision is quoted hereinbelow for benefit.
Shiv Shanker Dal Mills Etc. Etc vs State Of Haryana & Ors. Etc on 9 November, 1979
"98. From the above cases, it clearly transpires that powers
under Articles 226 and 227 are discretionary and equitable and
are required to be exercised in the larger interest of justice.
While granting relief in favour of the applicant, the Court
must take into account balancing interests and equities. It can
mould relief considering the facts of the case. It can pass an
appropriate order which justice may demand and equities may
project. As observed by this Court in Shiv Shankar Dal Mills
v. State of Haryana, (1980) 1 SCR 1170, Courts of equity
should go much further both to give and refuse relief in
furtherance of public interest. Granting or withholding of
relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of
justice, equity and good conscience."
Champalal Binani vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 4 December, 1969
A court of equity,
when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to
prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith
and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the
parties concerned. Petition can be entertained only after being
fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual
and cavalier manner. (Vide Champalal Binani Vs. The
Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1970
SC 645; Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shrike & Anr. v. Oriental Fire
and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2532; LIC of
India v. Smt. Asha Goel & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 549; The State
Financial Corporation & Anr. v. M/s. Jagdamba Oil Mills &
Anr., AIR 2002 SC 834; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan &
Anr., AIR 2003 SC 2889; and Punjab Roadways, Moga through
its General Manager v. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport Co. &
Ors, (2010) 5 SCC 235)."
Chimajitao Kanhojirao Shirke & Anr vs Oriental Fire & Genera Insurance Co. Ltd on 26 July, 2000
A court of equity,
when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to
prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith
and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the
parties concerned. Petition can be entertained only after being
fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual
and cavalier manner. (Vide Champalal Binani Vs. The
Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1970
SC 645; Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shrike & Anr. v. Oriental Fire
and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2532; LIC of
India v. Smt. Asha Goel & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 549; The State
Financial Corporation & Anr. v. M/s. Jagdamba Oil Mills &
Anr., AIR 2002 SC 834; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan &
Anr., AIR 2003 SC 2889; and Punjab Roadways, Moga through
its General Manager v. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport Co. &
Ors, (2010) 5 SCC 235)."
Life Insurance Corporation Of India & ... vs Smt.Asha Goel & Anr on 13 December, 2000
A court of equity,
when exercising its equitable jurisdiction must act so as to
prevent perpetration of a legal fraud and promote good faith
and equity. An order in equity is one which is equitable to all the
parties concerned. Petition can be entertained only after being
fully satisfied about the factual statements and not in a casual
and cavalier manner. (Vide Champalal Binani Vs. The
Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1970
SC 645; Chimajirao Kanhojirao Shrike & Anr. v. Oriental Fire
and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 2532; LIC of
India v. Smt. Asha Goel & Anr., AIR 2001 SC 549; The State
Financial Corporation & Anr. v. M/s. Jagdamba Oil Mills &
Anr., AIR 2002 SC 834; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan &
Anr., AIR 2003 SC 2889; and Punjab Roadways, Moga through
its General Manager v. Punja Sahib Bus and Transport Co. &
Ors, (2010) 5 SCC 235)."