Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Ishwar Singh Khatri And Ors. on 4 August, 1989
The
principle behind the said decision is that if that
was allowed to be done, such action would be
entirely arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution, since other candidates who
had chosen not to apply for the vacant posts which
were being sought to be filled, could have also
applied if they had known that the other vacancies
14
would also be under consideration for being filled
up. In fact, in the decision rendered in Ishwar
Singh Khatri's case (supra) which was referred to
by the High Court, this Court while considering the
preparation of panel of 1492 selected candidates as
against the 654 actual vacancies notified, recorded
the fact that after filling up the notified number
of vacancies from the panel, no further
appointments were made therefrom and instead fresh
advertisement was issued for further appointment.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Rajkumar Sharma & Ors on 3 March, 2006
In a recent decision rendered by this Court in
State of U.P. Vs. Raj Kumar Sharma [(2006) 3 SCC
330], this Court once again had to consider the
question of filling up of vacancies over and above
the number of vacancies advertised. Referring to
the various decisions rendered on this issue, this
Court held that filling up of vacancies over and
above the number of vacancies advertised would be
violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed
under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and
that selectees could not claim appointments as a
matter of right. It was reiterated that mere
inclusion of candidates in the Select List does not
confer any right to be selected, even if some of
16
the vacancies remained unfilled. This Court went
on to observe further that even if in some cases
appointments had been made by mistake or wrongly,
that did not confer any right of appointment to
another person, as Article 14 of the Constitution
does not envisage negative equality and if the
State had committed a mistake, it cannot be forced
to perpetuate the said mistake.
1