Published on: 01 October 2023 at 17:14 IST
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Sudesh Kumar Goyal V. State of Haryana (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that a person cannot seek a right against the vacancy caused due to resignation of one of the selected candidates. It is held that whenever a Government notifies the vacancies which is stood filled, and if one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process.
17. In view of the reasoning given by the respondents for appointing only 13 selected candidates leaving the appellant who was at Sl. No. 14, we are of the opinion that the respondents have justified the appointments and have not acted in an arbitrary manner. The respondents have acted fairly and logically without any malice against the appellant.
Thus, on the touchstone of the decision cited on behalf of the appellant himself, we do not find any arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court is not liable to be disturbed on the above count, more particularly when the appellant has not acquired any indefeasible right to be appointed because he qualified in the selection process.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Sudesh Kumar Goyal V. State of Haryana (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that a person cannot seek a right against the vacancy caused due to resignation of one of the selected candidates. It is held that whenever a Government notifies the vacancies which is stood filled, and if one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process.
17. In view of the reasoning given by the respondents for appointing only 13 selected candidates leaving the appellant who was at Sl. No. 14, we are of the opinion that the respondents have justified the appointments and have not acted in an arbitrary manner. The respondents have acted fairly and logically without any malice against the appellant. Thus, on the touchstone of the decision cited on behalf of the appellant himself, we do not find any arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court is not liable to be disturbed on the above count, more particularly when the appellant has not acquired any indefeasible right to be appointed because he qualified in the selection process.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: Sudesh Kumar Goyal V. State of Haryana (2023)
Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that a person cannot seek a right against the vacancy caused due to resignation of one of the selected candidates. It is held that whenever a Government notifies the vacancies which is stood filled, and if one of the selected candidates joins and then resigns, it gives rise to a fresh vacancy which could not have been filled up without issuing a proper advertisement and following the fresh selection process.
17. In view of the reasoning given by the respondents for appointing only 13 selected candidates leaving the appellant who was at Sl. No. 14, we are of the opinion that the respondents have justified the appointments and have not acted in an arbitrary manner. The respondents have acted fairly and logically without any malice against the appellant. Thus, on the touchstone of the decision cited on behalf of the appellant himself, we do not find any arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Therefore, the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court is not liable to be disturbed on the above count, more particularly when the appellant has not acquired any indefeasible right to be appointed because he qualified in the selection process.
Drafted By Abhijit Mishra
