Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.40 seconds)
Ms. Oneel Shukla vs Union Public Service Commission on 26 February, 2014 cites

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

19. Now we take up the case of Manoj Manu and Another versus Union of India (supra). Here, the facts of the case were that the appellants, who were Assistants in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS), appeared in Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for the next promotion to the post of Section Officers Grade in that service. In the year 2005, on the requisition sent for 184 general category posts by the DOP&T, the UPSC recommended 184 candidates in two lots  141 candidates and 43 candidates. Out of these, 6 candidates did not join. The DOP&T requisitioned 6 general category candidates against 6 general category vacancies while the UPSC recommended names of 3 candidates out of the reserved list maintained by it. The two appellants, who were next in the merit list had secured 305 marks, the same as secured by one Rajesh Kumar Yadav who had been recommended by the respondent no.2 in this case. Aggrieved by non-recommendation, the appellants Manoj Manu and another approached the Tribunal which dismissed their OA on the ground that the ACRs are also seen for determining the merit position of the candidates who had secured the same marks in the written test. The stand of the appellants was that since they had secured the same marks, not giving them appointment would be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. The Honble High Court of Delhi was chary to grant this relief on the ground that taking a different view would upset the policy or convention followed by the UPSC and will create ambiguity which may also lead to confusion. The Honble Supreme Court set aside the order of the Honble High Court holding as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 167 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991

10. Merely because the names of the candidates were included in the panel indicating their provisional selection, they did not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against the existing vacancies and the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies as laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court, after referring to earlier cases in Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 : (1991 AIR SCW 1583 : AIR 1991 SC 1612 : 1991 Lab IC 1460). Para 7 of the said judgment reads thus :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1160 - L M Sharma - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973

"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. Subhash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220 : (AIR 1973 SC 2216 : 1974 Lab IC 1212); Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana (1986) 4 SCC 268 : (AIR 1987 SC 169 : 1987 Lab IC 34) or Jatindra Kumar v. State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 122 : (AIR 1984 SC 1850)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 762 - D G Palekar - Full Document

Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir & Another on 9 May, 1980

17. As per the cases relied upon by the applicants in the cases of CCSD Versus Minister for the Civil Service (supra), F.C.I. versus Kamdhenu Cattle Fee Industries (supra) Ramana Dayaram Shetty Versus International Airport (supra) and Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy versus State of Jammu and Kashmir (supra), one finds that these cases relate to legitimate expectations, power of public authority to use its power for public good, adherence to Article 14 and the Government being the Welfare State must affirm to reasonableness etc. etc., which, in any case, are not denied. However, the main issue is that whether the Government can be compelled to take up something which is not ordained by the rules.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 364 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Anshoo Pandey & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors. on 21 October, 2010

18. The applicants have also relied upon the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 qua the case of Shri Anshoo Pandey & Others versus Union of India (supra). The affidavit clearly states that the service allocation is a chain process and is yet to be processed. It is not possible to fill up that vacancy for the same examination year as it would upset the whole chain process and it would be a never ending process. Not only this, the candidates would be shifting for training courses from one Service to another in pursuance of the new service allotment time and again.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

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

"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. Subhash Chander Marwaha (1974) 3 SCC 220 : (AIR 1973 SC 2216 : 1974 Lab IC 1212); Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana (1986) 4 SCC 268 : (AIR 1987 SC 169 : 1987 Lab IC 34) or Jatindra Kumar v. State of Punjab (1985) 1 SCC 122 : (AIR 1984 SC 1850)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 271 - R B Misra - Full Document

Surinder Singh And Ors. Etc vs State Of Punjab And Anr. Etc on 27 August, 1997

The applicants have field upon the cases decided by the Honble Supreme Court which include Surinder Singh and Others versus State of Punjab and Another [1997 (8) SCC 488]; Mukul Saikia versus State of Assam [2009 (1) SCC 386] and Manoj Manu and Another versus Union of India [CA No. 6707 of 2013] to hold that the waiting list is used to fill up the notified vacancies where selected candidates do not join and that the UPSC is duty bound to provide a list of candidates on requisition by the DoP&T. A substantial number of vacancies, mostly less preferred services, are remained unfilled on account of cancellation of candidatures and the less preferred Cadres are facing shortage of officers. A particular instance of Defence State Service has been cited where the situation has become alarming on account of shortage of officers.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 168 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1   2 Next