GIRDHAR KUMAR DADHITCH AND ANR. versus ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

GIRDHAR KUMAR DADHITCH AND ANR. versus ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

A select list prepared in 1998 expired after one year and, in the absence of proof of legal extension, appointments cannot be made from it for posts filled in 2003. Supreme Court's prospective overruling of the bonus marks provision in Kailash Chand Sharma protects only those appointed before the cut-off date; unsuccessful candidates are not liable to be appointed after the expiry of the select list.

Parties
Appellant: Girdhar Kumar Dadhitch; Respondent: State of Rajasthan; Appellant: Mukul Kumar; Appellant: Rishi Matoliya; Appellant: P.O. Sharma; Respondent: Aruneshwar Gupta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment, Select List Validity, Bonus Marks, Prospective Overruling

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Girdhar Kumar Dadhitch

Appellant

State of Rajasthan

Respondent

Mukul Kumar

Appellant

Rishi Matoliya

Appellant

P.O. Sharma

Appellant

Aruneshwar Gupta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Final Appeal

  1. 1 Whether appellants are entitled to appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher Grade-III after expiry of select list and prospective overruling of bonus marks provision.
  2. 2 Whether Supreme Court's decision in Kailash Chand Sharma applies to vacancies arising after the cut-off date.

Ratio Decidendi

A select list prepared in 1998 expired after one year and, in the absence of proof of legal extension, appointments cannot be made from it for posts filled in 2003. Supreme Court's prospective overruling of the bonus marks provision in Kailash Chand Sharma protects only those appointed before the cut-off date; unsuccessful candidates are not liable to be appointed after the expiry of the select list.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs