Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Bijoy Kumar Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Bijoy Kumar Singh and ors. vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Disposition Appeal Dismissed Court Supreme Court of India Decided Sep 05, 1990
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/662995

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 2761 of 1987
Subject
Service
Disposition
Appeal Dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- [ B.C. Ray and; K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty, JJ.] - Service Law — Appointment — Selection list — Those not included in selection list even after passing written test and viva voce test, cannot claim to be appointed against the vacancies which could not be filled due to pendency of enquiries pend...

Key legal issue
Service
Outcome / disposition
Appeal Dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bijoy Kumar Singh and ors.

Advocate Mr. N.B. Shetye

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Advocate Mr. V.C. Mahajan

Legal References

Reported In
1991Supp(1)SCC188

Excerpt

- [ b.c. ray and; k. jagannatha shetty shetty, jj.] - service law - appointment - selection list - those not included in selection list even after passing written test and viva voce test, cannot claim to be appointed against the vacancies which could not be filled due to pendency of enquiries pending against some of the selected candidates -- thereafter, a selection list was prepared by the railway authorities. in this selection list only the names of 790 candidates appeared. the names of the appellants did not appear in the selection list published by the railways. these appellants, however, questioned before this court that since out of 790 candidates 300 and odd candidates were not employed as certain enquiries were pending against them, so the unfilled up vacancies be directed to be filled up by these appellants......not find any merit in this contention. firstly, these appellants were not included in the selection list published by the railways and as such there is no question for considering them in respect of unfilled vacancies, if there be any, and appointing them. it has, of course, been argued with great stress by mr n.b. shetye, learned counsel for the appellants, that these appellants duly passed the interview and as such their claim for consideration in respect of unfilled posts cannot be unnoticed and they should be considered. in our considered opinion their cases cannot be considered for the unfilled up vacancies, existing if any, as their names do not appear in the selection list. secondly, it is stated by mr v.c. mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents - railways, that he has been instructed to state before this court that all the 790 candidates in the selection list had been offered appointments against 790 vacancies.3. in that view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants in this case. the civil appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs.

Full Judgment

B.C. Ray and; K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty, JJ.

1. The only question that was agitated before this Court is that the appellants, pursuant to their applications for the posts advertised by the railways, were asked to sit in a written test. They sat in the written test along with other 14,000 candidates and passed in the said written test and 1130 successful candidates, including the appellants, were called for viva voce. Thereafter, a selection list was prepared by the railway authorities. In this selection list only the names of 790 candidates appeared. The names of the appellants did not appear in the selection list published by the railways. These appellants, however, questioned before this Court that since out of 790 candidates 300 and odd candidates were not employed as certain enquiries were pending against them, so the unfilled up vacancies be directed to be filled up by these appellants.

2. We do not find any merit in this contention. Firstly, these appellants were not included in the selection list published by the railways and as such there is no question for considering them in respect of unfilled vacancies, if there be any, and appointing them. It has, of course, been argued with great stress by Mr N.B. Shetye, learned counsel for the appellants, that these appellants duly passed the interview and as such their claim for consideration in respect of unfilled posts cannot be unnoticed and they should be considered. In our considered opinion their cases cannot be considered for the unfilled up vacancies, existing if any, as their names do not appear in the selection list. Secondly, it is stated by Mr V.C. Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondents - railways, that he has been instructed to state before this Court that all the 790 candidates in the selection list had been offered appointments against 790 vacancies.

3. In that view of the matter, we are unable to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants in this case. The civil appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial