Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Abdul Majid Ganai vs State Of J&K Through ... on 18 November, 2023 cites

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 Marwahat, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab'
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 762 - D G Palekar - Full Document

Neelima Shangla Ph.D. Candidate vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 17 September, 1986

'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 Marwahat, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab'
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 458 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Jatinder Kumar & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 28 September, 1984

'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 Marwahat, Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, or Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab'
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 271 - R B Misra - Full Document

Manoj Manu & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 August, 2013

19. Further, In Manoj Manu and Anr. V. Union ofr India & ors. (2013) 12 SCC 171, it was held by the Apex Court 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 167 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1