Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.28 seconds)
Mukesh Kumar vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2026 cites

Union Territory Of Chandigarh vs Dilbagh Singh And Ors on 3 November, 1992

22. Mr. Malhotra's contention that the order was passed entirely on the basis of the complaint received from the unsuccessful candidates is also of no assistance. The fact that some representations were received against the test or the procedure followed for the same could not by itself justify cancellation of the test unless the authority concerned applied its mind to the allegations levelled by the persons making the representation and came to the conclusion that the grievance made in the complaint was not without merit. If a test is cancelled just because some complaints against the same have been made howsoever frivolous, it may lead to a situation where no selection process can be finalized as those who fail to qualify can always make a grievance against the test or its fairness. What is important is that once a complaint or representation is received the competent authority applies its mind to the same and records reasons why in its opinion it is necessary to cancel the examination in the interest of purity of the selection process or with a view to preventing injustice or prejudice to those who have appeared in the same. That is precisely what had happened in Dilbagh Singh's case (supra). The examination was cancelled upon an inquiry into the allegations of unjust, arbitrary and dubious selection list prepared by the Selection Board in which the allegations were found to be correct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 160 - Full Document

Mohd Rashid vs The Director Local Bodies New ... on 15 January, 2020

14.​ Pursuant to the above letter, a representation was filed by the selected candidates to give them joining. However, it must be noted that the above letter only 'recommended' that appointment be given to all the selectees to meet the ends of justice which should not be treated as a final direction to appointment itself. Further, while some of the staffs involved in the selection process have been stated to be exonerated/acquitted/promoted, the entire selection process itself has nowhere been admitted to have been declared fair and the finding of the inquiry as mentioned in the very letter dated 18.05.2005 is that "There are too many procedural mistakes which may or may not have been deliberate. Major irregularities suggest that the entire recruitment process was conducted in a manner which was not above board and could have been for consideration other than purely merits." As the selection process was found to be tainted, merely appearing on a merit list or being selected for a public post does not grant an indefeasible or vested right to employment. While selection makes a candidate eligible, the appointing authority is not obligated to Digitally MADHU signed by KUMARI MADHU KUMARI Page 11 of 18 O.A./1114/2016 appoint them if they have bona fide reasons not to fill vacancies. Hon'ble Apex Court has given various rulings regarding the above fact, for instance, in Civil Appeals No. 136 of 2020 with No. 137 of 2020 Mohd. Rashid v Director, Local Bodies, New Secretariat and Others (2020) 2 SCC 582, Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 80 - H Gupta - Full Document

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 the State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha [(1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973 SCC (L&S) 488 : (1974) 1 SCR 165] ;
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 762 - D G Palekar - Full Document
1   2 Next