Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

K. JAYAMOHAN versus STATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

Decided
25 April 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Leave Granted & Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 3 S.C.R. 1046 · 1997 INSC 439
Also cited as
  • (1997) 5 SCC 170 (17 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1997 SC 2619 (3 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

p. 1046, margin F

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgme~t of the High Court of Kerala, made on 25.7.1996 in Writ Appeal No. 997/96.

p. 1046, margin F

The admitted facts are the two posts of Lecturers in Physical Education were advertised for recruitment in the year 1988 through the Public Service Commission. Written Test and oral interviews were conducted in the year 1992 and the Select List, a long list of 10 candidates was prepared by the Public Service Commission; the appellant stood at No. 10 in the said list. Two other candidates selected have already been appointed. Since there often exist some vacancies, the appellant, one of the selected candidates, made a represr.ntation to appoint him. That was rejected on the ground that pursuant to the amendment to the Kerala Collegiate Education Service Special Rules, 1994 which came into force with retrospective effect from March 13, 1990, higher qualifications were prescribed and since the appellant did not fulfil the requisite qualification, he was not eligible and could not be appointed. When the appellant filed writ petition, the single Judge and on appeal the Division Bench of the High Court held that merely because he was kept in the select list, he acquired no absolute right to appointment and it is not incumbent upon the authorities to appoint him. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

pp. 1046–1047, margin F

Shri T.L.V. Iyer, learned senior counsel for the appellant, whether when asked to find out the selection is made only to two posts or more, points out from page No. 2 of the judgment of the High Court that the advertisement is only for two posts. In view of the fact that the advertisement was restricted to the existing vacancies, namely, two posts, it is not incumbent upon the authorities to appoint the candidate from the waiting list. He has no right to appointment. It is contended that such an appointment is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India as the candidates eligible when selected are denied of the opportunity for applying for selection and get their rights tested.

p. 1047, margin C

It is settled legal position that merely because a candidate is selected and kept in the waiting 'list, he does not acquire any absolute right for appointment. It is open to the Government to make the appointment or not. Even if there is any vacancy, it is not incumbent upon the Government to fill up the same. But the appointing authority must give reasonable explanation for non- appointment. Equally, the Public Service Commission/recruitment agency shall prepare waiting list only to the extent of anticipated vacancies. In view of the above settled legal position, no error is found in the judgment of the High Court warranting interference.

p. 1047, margin D

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. G.N. Appeal dismissed.

p. 1047, margin F