https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298342 In a recruitment dispute after State reorganisation, the Supreme Court reiterated that inclusion in a select list does not create an enforceable right to appointment. The earlier observation allowing future consideration did not amount to a direction for automatic appointment, and the select list was not a continuing source of rights once the advertised vacancies had been filled and the original cadre structure had changed. Appointment could not be ordered beyond the number of advertised posts, and isolated earlier appointments could not be used to claim negative equality. The claim to appointment from the old select list was therefore rejected, and the direction to appoint was set aside. en-us Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Oct 2021 11:32:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298342 In a recruitment dispute after State reorganisation, the Supreme Court reiterated that inclusion in a select list does not create an enforceable right to appointment. The earlier observation allowing future consideration did not amount to a direction for automatic appointment, and the select list was not a continuing source of rights once the advertised vacancies had been filled and the original cadre structure had changed. Appointment could not be ordered beyond the number of advertised posts, and isolated earlier appointments could not be used to claim negative equality. The claim to appointment from the old select list was therefore rejected, and the direction to appoint was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Mar 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298342