Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 13 August, 2013 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Ishwar Singh Khatri And Ors. on 4 August, 1989

The question whether the candidates whose names are included in the waiting list are entitled to be appointed against the unfilled posts as of right is no longer res integra and must be answered in negative in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri 1992 Supp (3) SCC 84, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat and others 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others (1994) 1 SCC 126, Prem Singh and others v. Haryana SEB and others 1996) 4 SCC 319, Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others (1996) 1 SCC 283, Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (1997) 8 SCC 488, Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others (1995) 3 SCC 486, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others (1998) 3 SCC 45, State of J&K and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others (2005) 4 SCC 148, State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others (2006) 3 SCC 330, Ram Avtar Patwari and others v. State of Haryana and others 2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray and others v. High Court of Delhi and others (2010) 2 SCC 637.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 123 - Full Document

Ashok Kumar & Ors vs The Chairman, Banking Service ... on 9 November, 1995

The question whether the candidates whose names are included in the waiting list are entitled to be appointed against the unfilled posts as of right is no longer res integra and must be answered in negative in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri 1992 Supp (3) SCC 84, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat and others 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others (1994) 1 SCC 126, Prem Singh and others v. Haryana SEB and others 1996) 4 SCC 319, Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others (1996) 1 SCC 283, Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (1997) 8 SCC 488, Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others (1995) 3 SCC 486, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others (1998) 3 SCC 45, State of J&K and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others (2005) 4 SCC 148, State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others (2006) 3 SCC 330, Ram Avtar Patwari and others v. State of Haryana and others 2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray and others v. High Court of Delhi and others (2010) 2 SCC 637.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 131 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Kamlesh Kumar Sharma vs Yogesh Kumar Gupta & Ors on 9 February, 1998

The question whether the candidates whose names are included in the waiting list are entitled to be appointed against the unfilled posts as of right is no longer res integra and must be answered in negative in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri 1992 Supp (3) SCC 84, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat and others 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others (1994) 1 SCC 126, Prem Singh and others v. Haryana SEB and others 1996) 4 SCC 319, Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others (1996) 1 SCC 283, Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (1997) 8 SCC 488, Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others (1995) 3 SCC 486, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others (1998) 3 SCC 45, State of J&K and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others (2005) 4 SCC 148, State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others (2006) 3 SCC 330, Ram Avtar Patwari and others v. State of Haryana and others 2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray and others v. High Court of Delhi and others (2010) 2 SCC 637.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 74 - Full Document

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

The question whether the candidates whose names are included in the waiting list are entitled to be appointed against the unfilled posts as of right is no longer res integra and must be answered in negative in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri 1992 Supp (3) SCC 84, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat and others 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others (1994) 1 SCC 126, Prem Singh and others v. Haryana SEB and others 1996) 4 SCC 319, Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others (1996) 1 SCC 283, Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (1997) 8 SCC 488, Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others (1995) 3 SCC 486, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others (1998) 3 SCC 45, State of J&K and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others (2005) 4 SCC 148, State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others (2006) 3 SCC 330, Ram Avtar Patwari and others v. State of Haryana and others 2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray and others v. High Court of Delhi and others (2010) 2 SCC 637.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 244 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ram Avtar Patwari And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 September, 2007

The question whether the candidates whose names are included in the waiting list are entitled to be appointed against the unfilled posts as of right is no longer res integra and must be answered in negative in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri 1992 Supp (3) SCC 84, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat and others 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others (1994) 1 SCC 126, Prem Singh and others v. Haryana SEB and others 1996) 4 SCC 319, Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others (1996) 1 SCC 283, Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (1997) 8 SCC 488, Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others (1995) 3 SCC 486, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others (1998) 3 SCC 45, State of J&K and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others (2005) 4 SCC 148, State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others (2006) 3 SCC 330, Ram Avtar Patwari and others v. State of Haryana and others 2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray and others v. High Court of Delhi and others (2010) 2 SCC 637.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 48 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Rakhi Ray & Ors vs High Court Of Delhi & Ors on 1 February, 2010

The question whether the candidates whose names are included in the waiting list are entitled to be appointed against the unfilled posts as of right is no longer res integra and must be answered in negative in view of the judgments of this Court in Union of India v. Ishwar Singh Khatri 1992 Supp (3) SCC 84, Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Association v. State of Gujarat and others 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591, State of Bihar v. Secretariat Assistant Successful Examinees Union 1986 and others (1994) 1 SCC 126, Prem Singh and others v. Haryana SEB and others 1996) 4 SCC 319, Ashok Kumar and others v. Chairman, Banking Service Recruitment Board and others (1996) 1 SCC 283, Surinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another (1997) 8 SCC 488, Madan Lal and others v. State of J&K and others (1995) 3 SCC 486, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma v. Yogesh Kumar Gupta and others (1998) 3 SCC 45, State of J&K and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others (2005) 4 SCC 148, State of U.P. and others v. Rajkumar Sharma and others (2006) 3 SCC 330, Ram Avtar Patwari and others v. State of Haryana and others 2007) 10 SCC 94 and Rakhi Ray and others v. High Court of Delhi and others (2010) 2 SCC 637.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 364 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Raghbir Chand Sharma & Anr on 30 October, 2001

“It is a settled legal proposition that vacancies cannot be filled up over and above the number of vacancies advertised as “the recruitment of the candidates in excess of the notified vacancies is a denial and deprivation of the constitutional right under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution”, of those persons who acquired eligibility for the post in question in accordance with the statutory rules subsequent to the date of notification of vacancies. Filling up the vacancies over the notified vacancies is neither permissible nor desirable, for the reason, that it amounts to “improper exercise of power and only in a rare and exceptional circumstance and in emergent situation, such a rule can be deviated from and such a deviation is permissible only after adopting policy decision based on some rationale”, otherwise the exercise would be arbitrary. Filling up of vacancies over the notified vacancies amounts to filling up of future vacancies and thus, is not permissible in law.” In State of Punjab v. Raghbir Chand Sharma (2002) 1 SCC 113, a two Judge Bench considered the questions as to when the recruitment process can be said to have come to an end and whether the select list can be operated qua the posts/vacancies which become available due to resignation of the existing incumbent and answered the same in negative by making the following observations:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Mukul Saikia & Ors vs State Of Assam & Ors on 18 November, 2008

“With the appointment of the first candidate for the only post in respect of which the consideration came to be made and select panel prepared, the panel ceased to exist and has outlived its utility and, at any rate, no one else in the panel can legitimately contend that he should have been offered appointment either in the vacancy arising on account of the subsequent resignation of the person appointed from the panel or any other vacancies arising subsequently. The circular order dated 22-3-1957, in our view, relates to select panels prepared by the Public Service Commission and not a panel of the nature under consideration. That apart, even as per the circular orders as also the decision relied upon for the first respondent, no claim can be asserted and countenanced for appointment after the expiry of six months. We find no rhyme or reason for such a claim to be enforced before courts, leave alone there being any legally protected right in the first respondent to get appointed to any vacancy arising subsequently, when somebody else was appointed by the process of promotion taking into account his experience and needs as well as administrative exigencies.” In Mukul Saikia v. State of Assam (2009) 1 SCC 386, this Court held that once the appointments are made against the advertised posts, the select list gets exhausted and those who are placed below the last appointee cannot claim appointment against the posts which subsequently become available. Paragraph 33 of the judgment which contains discussion on this issue is reproduced below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 127 - L S Panta - Full Document
1