Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.27 seconds)
P K Seethalakshmi vs M/O Human Resource Development on 2 April, 2025 cites

Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors on 20 March, 2013

In determining the essential principle that once the recruitment process begins, the State or its instrumentality cannot alter the 'rules of the game' regarding eligibility criteria, the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak vs. Rajasthan High Court (Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013), delivered its judgment on 07.11.2024, taking into account all the case laws cited by the respondents' counsel. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portions of the judgment here to address the issue at hand in the current TA:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 150 - Full Document

State Of U.P. & Ors vs Rajkumar Sharma & Ors on 3 March, 2006

10. He further submitted that filling vacancies beyond those advertised violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as held in the case of State of UP vs. Rajkumar Sharma (2006) 3 SCC 330. He argued that the applicant cannot claim appointment solely because her name appeared on the select list, even if vacancies remain unfilled. The counsel drew our attention to the relevant paragraph of the aforementioned judgment, which reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 244 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Union Of India vs S.S. Uppal And Anr on 9 January, 1996

"Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidates' name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the concerned candidates cannot claim that they have 8 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022 been given a hostile discrimination. (See:Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (AIR 1991 SC 1612), Smt. Asha Kaul and Another v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and another (1993 (2) SCC 573), Union of India v. S.S. Uppal(AIR 1996 SC 2346), Hanman Prasad v. Union of India (1996 (10) SCC 742), Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 2280), Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Shankar Paul & Ors.(AIR 1997 SC 3091), Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and Ors.(1997 (10) SCC 264), Punjab State Electricity Board v. Seema (1999 SCC (L&S) 629);All India SC & ST Employees Association v. A Arthur Jeen, (AIR 2001 SC 1851), Vinodan T. v. University of Kalikut, (2002 (4) SCC
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 103 - Full Document

Syndicate Bank And Ors vs Shankar Paul And Ors on 1 August, 1997

"Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidates' name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the concerned candidates cannot claim that they have 8 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022 been given a hostile discrimination. (See:Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (AIR 1991 SC 1612), Smt. Asha Kaul and Another v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and another (1993 (2) SCC 573), Union of India v. S.S. Uppal(AIR 1996 SC 2346), Hanman Prasad v. Union of India (1996 (10) SCC 742), Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 2280), Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Shankar Paul & Ors.(AIR 1997 SC 3091), Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and Ors.(1997 (10) SCC 264), Punjab State Electricity Board v. Seema (1999 SCC (L&S) 629);All India SC & ST Employees Association v. A Arthur Jeen, (AIR 2001 SC 1851), Vinodan T. v. University of Kalikut, (2002 (4) SCC
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 37 - Full Document

The Vice Chancellor, University Of ... vs Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra & Ors on 16 December, 1996

"Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidates' name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the concerned candidates cannot claim that they have 8 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022 been given a hostile discrimination. (See:Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (AIR 1991 SC 1612), Smt. Asha Kaul and Another v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and another (1993 (2) SCC 573), Union of India v. S.S. Uppal(AIR 1996 SC 2346), Hanman Prasad v. Union of India (1996 (10) SCC 742), Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 2280), Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Shankar Paul & Ors.(AIR 1997 SC 3091), Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and Ors.(1997 (10) SCC 264), Punjab State Electricity Board v. Seema (1999 SCC (L&S) 629);All India SC & ST Employees Association v. A Arthur Jeen, (AIR 2001 SC 1851), Vinodan T. v. University of Kalikut, (2002 (4) SCC
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 109 - Full Document

Punjab State Electricity Board vs Seema Rani on 23 November, 2013

"Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidates' name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the concerned candidates cannot claim that they have 8 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022 been given a hostile discrimination. (See:Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (AIR 1991 SC 1612), Smt. Asha Kaul and Another v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and another (1993 (2) SCC 573), Union of India v. S.S. Uppal(AIR 1996 SC 2346), Hanman Prasad v. Union of India (1996 (10) SCC 742), Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 2280), Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Shankar Paul & Ors.(AIR 1997 SC 3091), Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and Ors.(1997 (10) SCC 264), Punjab State Electricity Board v. Seema (1999 SCC (L&S) 629);All India SC & ST Employees Association v. A Arthur Jeen, (AIR 2001 SC 1851), Vinodan T. v. University of Kalikut, (2002 (4) SCC
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Cites 5 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

All India Sc & St Employees Assn.& Anr vs A. Arthur Jeen & Ors on 12 April, 2001

"Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidates' name in the list does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the vacancies remained unfilled and the concerned candidates cannot claim that they have 8 TA No.3/3018 & MA 477/2022 been given a hostile discrimination. (See:Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India, (AIR 1991 SC 1612), Smt. Asha Kaul and Another v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and another (1993 (2) SCC 573), Union of India v. S.S. Uppal(AIR 1996 SC 2346), Hanman Prasad v. Union of India (1996 (10) SCC 742), Bihar Public Service Commission & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (AIR 1997 SC 2280), Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. Shankar Paul & Ors.(AIR 1997 SC 3091), Vice Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash Mishra and Ors.(1997 (10) SCC 264), Punjab State Electricity Board v. Seema (1999 SCC (L&S) 629);All India SC & ST Employees Association v. A Arthur Jeen, (AIR 2001 SC 1851), Vinodan T. v. University of Kalikut, (2002 (4) SCC
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 231 - S V Patil - Full Document
1   2 Next