SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3388

PATNA HIGH COURT
PARTHA SARTHY, J
Pradip Kumar and Ors – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: None
For the Respondents: Mr. Anant Pd.Singh, SC15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

9 19-01-2026 1. No one appears for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents is present.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for a direction to the respondents to publish an advertisement to fill up the vacant sanctioned post of Mali and for other reliefs.

3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana versus Subhash Chandra Marwaha & Ors.; (1974)

3 SCC 220 has held that existence of vacancy does not give legal right to a candidate to be selected for appointment. Further in case of Shankarsan Dash versus Union of India ; (1991) 3 SCC 47 and S.S.Balu & Ors. versus State of Kerala; (2009) 2 SCC 479, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if the name of the petitioner figures in the select list, he still does not acquire any legal right to be appointed.

4. The Court finds no merit in the instant writ application and the same is dismissed.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

Bibhash U

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top