https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184454 The Court held that individuals recommended by the Subordinate Service Selection Board for appointment as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police do not have an unfettered right to appointment, as the final authority rests with the Government. The State complied with Punjab Police Rules on recruitment quotas, and allegations of mala fide actions were unsubstantiated. The refusal to appoint did not violate constitutional rights, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel was inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs. en-us Fri, 28 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 09 Jul 2016 10:40:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184454 The Court held that individuals recommended by the Subordinate Service Selection Board for appointment as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police do not have an unfettered right to appointment, as the final authority rests with the Government. The State complied with Punjab Police Rules on recruitment quotas, and allegations of mala fide actions were unsubstantiated. The refusal to appoint did not violate constitutional rights, and the doctrine of promissory estoppel was inapplicable. The appeal was dismissed, with each party bearing their own costs. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Sep 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184454