Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.81 seconds)Section 7 in The Punjab Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes (Reservation in Services) Act, 2006 [Entire Act]
All India Sc & St Employees Assn.& Anr vs A. Arthur Jeen & Ors on 12 April, 2001
11. It is fairly well-settled that merely because the name of a
candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give him
indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. The name of a candidate
may appear in the merit list but he has no indefeasible right to an
appointment (vide Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh and
Ors.,(2005) 3 SCC 618; All India SC & ST Employees’ Association & Anr. v.
A. Arthur Jeen & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 380 and Union of Public Service
Commission v. Gaurav Dwivedi and Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 180.
Union Of Public Service Commission vs Gaurav Dwivedi & Ors on 13 May, 1999
11. It is fairly well-settled that merely because the name of a
candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give him
indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. The name of a candidate
may appear in the merit list but he has no indefeasible right to an
appointment (vide Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh and
Ors.,(2005) 3 SCC 618; All India SC & ST Employees’ Association & Anr. v.
A. Arthur Jeen & Ors. (2001) 6 SCC 380 and Union of Public Service
Commission v. Gaurav Dwivedi and Ors. (1999) 5 SCC 180.
State Of Orissa & Anr vs Rajkishore Nanda & Ors Etc. Etc on 3 June, 2010
12. This Court again in the case of State of Orissa & Anr. v.
Rajkishore Nanda and Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 777, held as under:
Manoj Manu & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 August, 2013
In Manoj Manu and Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2013 (10) SCALE
204: (2013) 12 SCC 171, it was held that merely because the name of a
candidate finds place in the select list, it would not give the candidate
an indefeasible right to get an appointment as well. It is always open to
the government not to fill up the vacancies, however such decision should
not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Once the decision is found to be based on
some valid reason, the court would not issue any mandamus to government to
fill up the vacancies. As noticed earlier, because twenty two other
candidates were declared successful by the Supreme Court pertaining to the
selection of the years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001 as Civil Judges (Junior
Division), they were to be accommodated, as rightly resolved by the
Administrative Committee in the meeting dated 06.07.2011. The three
resultant vacancies of the year 2007-2008 stood consumed with the joining
of the said seventeen candidates and the same could not be filled up from
the select list of that year. The decision of the Administrative Committee
observing that the three resultant vacancies stood consumed is based on
factual situation arising there and cannot be said to be arbitrary.
Rakhi Ray & Ors vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors on 1 February, 2010
In Rakhi Ray And Ors. vs. High
Court of Delhi And Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 637, observing that the vacancies
cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertized,
recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies would
amount to denial of equal opportunity to eligible candidates, this Court
held as under:-
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Rajkumar Sharma & Ors on 3 March, 2006
In State of U.P. And Ors. v. Rajkumar Sharma
And Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 330 it was held as under:-
Smt. Sneh Prabha Etc vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 15 November, 1995
“15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or
wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the
Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State
committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake.
(See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. (1996) 7 SCC 426; Secy., Jaipur
Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain(1997) 1 SCC 35; State of Haryana
v. Ram Kumar Mann(1997) 3 SCC 321; Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G.,
Health Services (1997) 7 SCC 752; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran
Singh (1999) 3 494; State of Punjab v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal (1999) 9 SCC 240;
Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi (2003) 3 SCC 548; Union of India v.
International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437 and Kastha Niwarak Grihnirman
Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. President, Indore Development Authority (2006)
2 SCC 604.)”
Merely because some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by
mistake, it does not confer right upon the appellants to claim equality.
Secretary, Jaipur Development ... vs Daulat Mal Jain on 20 September, 1996
“15. Even if in some cases appointments have been made by mistake or
wrongly that does not confer any right on another person. Article 14 of the
Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State
committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake.
(See Sneh Prabha v. State of U.P. (1996) 7 SCC 426; Secy., Jaipur
Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain(1997) 1 SCC 35; State of Haryana
v. Ram Kumar Mann(1997) 3 SCC 321; Faridabad C.T. Scan Centre v. D.G.,
Health Services (1997) 7 SCC 752; Jalandhar Improvement Trust v. Sampuran
Singh (1999) 3 494; State of Punjab v. Dr. Rajeev Sarwal (1999) 9 SCC 240;
Yogesh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT, Delhi (2003) 3 SCC 548; Union of India v.
International Trading Co. (2003) 5 SCC 437 and Kastha Niwarak Grihnirman
Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit v. President, Indore Development Authority (2006)
2 SCC 604.)”
Merely because some persons have been granted benefit illegally or by
mistake, it does not confer right upon the appellants to claim equality.