Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.40 seconds)The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014
Neelima Shangla Ph.D. Candidate vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 17 September, 1986
47. The Court referred to its earlier decision in Neelima Shangla vs.
State of Haryana4 and observed that in that case a view was taken that it
is open to the Government not to fill up all the vacancies for a valid
reason, but the selection cannot be arbitrarily restricted to a few
candidates notwithstanding the number of vacancies and the availability
of the qualified candidates.
Mrs. Asha Kaul And Anr. Etc vs State Of Jammu And Kashmir And Ors on 15 April, 1993
63. This indicates that any decision not to proceed further and give
appointment letters to selected candidates by the TSTRANSCO and
APTRANSCO pursuant to the said notifications cannot be taken
arbitrarily as observed in Shankarsan Dash (4 supra) and Asha Kaul (5
supra).
Dinesh Kumar Kashyap vs South East Central Railway on 27 November, 2018
55. Recently, in Dinesh Kumar Kashyap and others vs. South-East
Central Railway and others6, the Supreme Court reiterated that though
mere selection does not give any vested right to the selected candidate to
be appointed, at the same time, when a large number of posts are lying
vacant and the selection process has been followed, then the employer
must satisfy the court as to why it did not resort to and appoint the
selected candidates; just because discretion is vested in the authority, it
does not mean that it can be exercised arbitrarily. According to the
Court, though it is not incumbent upon the employer to fill all the posts,
it must give reasons and satisfy the court that it had some grounds for
not appointing the candidates who found place in the panel.
R.S. Mittal vs Union Of India on 27 March, 1995
It referred
to its earlier decision in R.S. Mittal vs. Union of India7 wherein it had
held that when a person was selected by the selection board and there is
a vacancy which can be offered to him, keeping in view his merit
position, then, ordinarily, there is no justification to ignore him for
6
(2019) 12 S.C.C. 798
7
(1995) Suppl. 2 S.C.C. 230
MSR,J & KL,J
20
W.P.No.3153 of 2018
and batch
appointment and that there has to be a justifiable reason to decline to
appoint a person who is on the select panel. The Court then held :
K.D.Sharma vs Steel Authorities Of India Ltd.& Ors on 9 July, 2008
38. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in
K.D.Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others2 to
contend that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is equitable and discretionary. It is also contended that no legal
right of the petitioner has been crystallized since the earlier selection was
not finalized.