Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.29 seconds)Vinodan T. & Ors vs University Of Calicut & Ors on 26 April, 2002
In Vinod, T. v. University of Calicut, , the Supreme Court observed thus:
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973
In Subash Chander Marwha's case (supra), the Supreme Court held that mere fact that certain candidates were selected for appointment to vacancies pursuant to an advertisement did not confer any right to be appointed to the post in question to entitle the selectees to a writ of mandamus or any other writ compelling the authority to make the appointment.
Union Of Public Service Commission vs Gaurav Dwivedi & Ors on 13 May, 1999
17. The State Government tried to relax under the penumbra of Supreme Court decisions in State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha (supra), Union of Public Service Commission v. Gaurav Dwivedi (supra) and Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut case (supra). The learned Additional Advocate General submits that the sovereign Government has the prerogative either to fill up the vacancies or not to fill up and that the selected candidates have no legal voice to seek mandamus. He also submits that the very notification was issued by the A.P.P.S.C. without the approval of the Finance Department as required under G.O. Ms. No. 275, dated 14-12-1995, and therefore, the entire recruitment was invalid and not binding on the Government. The learned Counsel for A.P.P.S.C. submits that the notification was issued as per the usual method of recruitment and even on earlier occasions also the same procedure was followed.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
K. Nanjunda Swamy And Another vs State Of Karnataka And Others on 3 June, 1998
32. A learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court in Nanjunda Swamy v. State of Karnataka, case (supra), the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution regulating the services of the State servants have statutory force and the State Government is under a statutory duty to act in accordance with the quota rules. Further if prompt steps are not taken to make direct recruitment, the very object of attracting and having younger persons with higher academic qualifications and experienced officials promoted from the lower cadres in the prescribed proportion in a given cadre at all times, which is the object and purpose of prescribing recruitment from these two sources would be defeated. Moreover, unless direct recruitment vacancies are advertised as and when they become available, the candidates who have acquired the necessary academic qualifications are likely to become disqualified on the ground of age if for a number of years the vacancies are not advertised resulting in deprivation of equality of opportunity for employment guaranteed under Clause (1) of Article 16 of the Constitution.
Chilukuri Ramarao And Ors. vs Govt. Of A.P. And Ors. on 16 April, 1998
31. Right to public employment is envisaged under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, of course, with certain limitations. Article 16(1) assures equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. This right also includes, the right to make an application for any post under the State and further right to be considered on merits for the post applied for. But, the Article does not guarantee right to be appointed. (See: Krishnachander v. Central Tractor Organisation, , Ramarao v. State of A.P., , High Court v. Amar Kumar, ).
A.K. Bhatnagar And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 9 November, 1990
In A.K. Bhatnagar v. Union of India, 1991 (1) SLR 191, the Supreme Court held thus: