Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a candidate whose name appears in the merit list acquires an indefeasible right to appointment against a vacancy and whether the decision not to fill later arising vacancies was arbitrary.
Analysis: Inclusion of a candidate's name in a select list does not by itself create a legal right to appointment. The relevant recruitment framework showed that the Government was empowered to determine cadre strength, the method of recruitment, and the vacancies to be filled, while the competitive examination regulations expressly stated that mere inclusion in the list did not confer a right to appointment and that selection remained subject to further requirements. The Court further found, on the materials before it, that the process of final selection had been validly closed at a particular stage and that the subsequent non-filling of later vacancies was not shown to be arbitrary or discriminatory. The different treatment accorded to reserved vacancies was upheld as based on special circumstances and a policy decision taken on relevant considerations.
Conclusion: The candidate had no indefeasible or vested right to appointment, and the challenge to the refusal to appoint from the later vacancies failed.