Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.25 seconds)

Babita Prasad And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 8 December, 1992

But, that cannot tantamount to an appointment.” [5] (1994) 1 SCC 126 at pg 129 “8. “It is now well settled that a person who is selected does not, on account of being empanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at the best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment, and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rule says to the contrary. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India and Sabita Prasad and Ors. v. State in Bihar and Ors”
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 372 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991

But, that cannot tantamount to an appointment.” [5] (1994) 1 SCC 126 at pg 129 “8. “It is now well settled that a person who is selected does not, on account of being empanelled alone, acquire any indefeasible right of appointment. Empanelment is at the best a condition of eligibility for purposes of appointment, and by itself does not amount to selection or create a vested right to be appointed unless relevant service rule says to the contrary. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India and Sabita Prasad and Ors. v. State in Bihar and Ors”
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1160 - L M Sharma - Full Document
1