Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.47 seconds)Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008
5. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the appellant-Institute, would submit that the
learned Single Judge had erred in interfering with the selection
process based on the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.
Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another[1] and
Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi[2]; in both these
judgments the Supreme Court had interdicted prescription of a
minimum cut-off marks for interview without stipulating such a
criteria in the Rules prior to issuance of an advertisement; unlike in
4
the said judgments, in the present case the process of selection is only
by way of a written examination, and no interviews are to be held;
even otherwise, the learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing a
mandamus to the appellant-Institute to fill up all the posts; a decision,
whether or not to fill up the advertised posts, is for the appellant-
Institute to take, and not for this Court, ordinarily, to direct; and the
order under appeal must, therefore, be set aside on these grounds.
K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
5. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General
appearing on behalf of the appellant-Institute, would submit that the
learned Single Judge had erred in interfering with the selection
process based on the judgments of the Supreme Court in K.
Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another[1] and
Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi[2]; in both these
judgments the Supreme Court had interdicted prescription of a
minimum cut-off marks for interview without stipulating such a
criteria in the Rules prior to issuance of an advertisement; unlike in
4
the said judgments, in the present case the process of selection is only
by way of a written examination, and no interviews are to be held;
even otherwise, the learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing a
mandamus to the appellant-Institute to fill up all the posts; a decision,
whether or not to fill up the advertised posts, is for the appellant-
Institute to take, and not for this Court, ordinarily, to direct; and the
order under appeal must, therefore, be set aside on these grounds.
Durgacharan Misra vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 27 August, 1987
In holding that the rules of the game cannot be changed
after commencement of the selection process, the Supreme Court, in
K. Manjusree[1], had relied on its earlier judgments in P.K.
Ramachandra Iyer and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.[3];
Umesh Chandra Shukla Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.[4]; and
Durgacharan Misra Vs. State of Orissa and Ors.[5]. Again, in
Hemani Malhotra[2], minimum cut-off marks were prescribed for
5
viva-voce after the selection process had commenced. This, the
Supreme Court held, was impermissible since such a criteria was
introduced after commencement of the selection process.
Pitta Naveen Kumar & Ors vs Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Ors on 14 September, 2006
10. No candidate has a legal right to be appointed. In terms of
Article 16 of the Constitution of India, he has only a right to be
considered for selection and appointment. (Pitta Naveen Kumar and
Ors. Vs. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and Ors.[6]). Ordinarily, the
notification of posts is merely an invitation to the 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 provide,
the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. If
a number of vacancies are notified for appointment, and adequate
number of candidates are found fit, it does not mean that the
6
successful candidates can claim to be appointed as of right, as
inclusion of their names in the list of successful candidates does not
confer on them an indefeasible right.
Rani Laxmibai Kshetriya ,& Gramin Bank ... vs Chand Behari Kapoor & Ors. & Kantya ... on 9 September, 1998
Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991
State Of Bihar & Ors vs Md. Kalimuddin & Ors on 10 January, 1996
Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors vs Malkiat Singh on 11 October, 2004
Babita Prasad And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 8 December, 1992
11. Empanelment, after selection, is at best a condition of eligibility
for the purpose of appointment, and does not, by itself, create a vested
right to be appointed, unless the relevant service rule provide to the
contrary. (Shankarsan Dash[8]; Babita Prasad and Ors. Vs. State in
Bihar and Ors.[11]; and State of Bihar and Ors. Vs. Secretariat
Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and Ors.[12]). By mere
selection, the candidates acquire no indefeasible right for appointment
even against existing vacancies.