Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors on 20 March, 2013
(d) Tej Prakash Pathak vs High Court of Rajasthan, (2013) 4 SCC
540;
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Maharashtra State Road Tpt. ... vs Rajendra Bhimrao Mandve & Ors on 20 November, 2001
(a) Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Rajendra
Bhimrao Mandve, 2001 (10) SCC 51;
Hemani Malhotra vs High Court Of Delhi on 3 April, 2008
(c) Hemani Malhotra vs High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11;
State Of Punjab vs Vk Khanna & Ors on 30 November, 2000
(e) State of Punjab vs V.K. Khanna, (2001) 2 SCC 330;
Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 November, 1973
(g) Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar vs State of Maharashtra, (1974)
1 SCC 317;
K.Manjusree Etc vs State Of A.P & Anr on 15 February, 2008
(h) K. Manjusree vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 3 SCC 512;
and
N.T. Bevin Kath Etc vs Karnataka Public Service Commission ... on 30 March, 1990
(i) N.T. Devin Katti vs Karnataka Public Service Commission,
(1990) 3 SCC 157.
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. Subash
Chander Marwaha".