https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275201 The Supreme Court held that the respondent, listed for a security guard post, had no automatic right to appointment. The decision to outsource services did not eliminate the vacancy, and the next eligible candidate should be considered. While the respondent argued a legitimate expectation of appointment, the Court emphasized that inclusion in a select list does not guarantee a position. The High Court's judgment was upheld, stating the respondent should have been appointed when vacancies were available. As the decision to contract out services occurred post the writ petition, the Court declined to intervene, dismissing the appeal. en-us Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Sep 2018 16:41:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275201 The Supreme Court held that the respondent, listed for a security guard post, had no automatic right to appointment. The decision to outsource services did not eliminate the vacancy, and the next eligible candidate should be considered. While the respondent argued a legitimate expectation of appointment, the Court emphasized that inclusion in a select list does not guarantee a position. The High Court's judgment was upheld, stating the respondent should have been appointed when vacancies were available. As the decision to contract out services occurred post the writ petition, the Court declined to intervene, dismissing the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275201