ALL INDIA SC AND ST EMPLOYEES ASSN. AND ANR versus A. ARTHUR JEEN AND ORS.

ALL INDIA SC AND ST EMPLOYEES ASSN. AND ANR versus A. ARTHUR JEEN AND ORS.

Selected candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against existing vacancies. State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any vacancies, but given the large administrative investment and minor procedural lapses, quashing the entire panel is unjustified. Proper reservation and selection principles were substantially complied with; applications are dismissed for lack of merit.

Parties
Petitioner: All India SC and ST Employees Association; Respondent: A. Arthur Jeen; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Decision on Slps Challenging Judgment/order of Madras High Court
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Appointment Process, Selection Panel, Reservation, Principles of Natural Justice, Non Impleadment of Necessary Parties
Service Law Indian Railway Establishment Manual Appointment Process Selection Panel Reservation Principles of Natural Justice Non Impleadment of Necessary Parties

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

All India SC and ST Employees Association

Petitioner

A. Arthur Jeen

Respondent

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (civil) / Final Decision on Slps Challenging Judgment/order of Madras High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether selected candidates acquire indefeasible rights to appointment against existing vacancies
  2. 2 Validity of increasing vacancies and selection without fresh notification
  3. 3 Maintainability in absence of impleadment of necessary parties

Ratio Decidendi

Selected candidates do not acquire any indefeasible right for appointment even against existing vacancies. State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any vacancies, but given the large administrative investment and minor procedural lapses, quashing the entire panel is unjustified. Proper reservation and selection principles were substantially complied with; applications are dismissed for lack of merit.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs