S.S. BALU & ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

S.S. BALU & ANR. versus STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

Appellants do not acquire a legal right to appointment merely by inclusion in the select list; State's discretion and the absence of discrimination/arbitrariness are controlling. Delay and laches preclude granting relief to appellants who did not challenge the Government Order timely and only impleaded themselves after others were successful.

Parties
Appellant: S.S. Balu; Respondent: State of Kerala; Appellant: Bahita Sant; Respondent: P.B. Suresh; Respondent: Vivek Sharma (for M/s. Temple Law Firm); Respondent: G. Prakash
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Appointment, Rank List Validity, Delay and Laches
Service Law Appointment Rank List Validity Delay and Laches

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S.S. Balu

Appellant

State of Kerala

Respondent

Bahita Sant

Appellant

P.B. Suresh

Respondent

Vivek Sharma (for M/s. Temple Law Firm)

Respondent

G. Prakash

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Division Bench Judgment of High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person acquires a legal right to appointment merely because his name appears in a select list
  2. 2 Whether delay and laches bar the appellants’ claim to appointment
  3. 3 Whether discrimination or arbitrariness in filling vacancies entitles a candidate to a legal remedy

Ratio Decidendi

Appellants do not acquire a legal right to appointment merely by inclusion in the select list; State's discretion and the absence of discrimination/arbitrariness are controlling. Delay and laches preclude granting relief to appellants who did not challenge the Government Order timely and only impleaded themselves after others were successful.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No direction for appointment of appellants
  • No costs