Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Many job aspirants in India believe that the right to apply for a government job is a sacred entitlement that the state cannot tamper with, even through inaction or policy shifts. But is this true? A common query arises: Right to apply for a government job is a fundamental right, it cannot be taken away due to inaction of state. This blog post dives deep into Supreme Court precedents to clarify this misconception, helping candidates understand their actual legal standing.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Under the Indian Constitution, fundamental rights like equality (Article 14) and equal opportunity in public employment (Article 16) are enshrined. However, the right to apply for a government job is not a fundamental right. It is typically a statutory or procedural right, subject to the state's recruitment rules and policies. State Of U. P. VS Rajkumar Sharma - 2006 2 Supreme 448
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that mere participation in a selection process or inclusion in a merit list does not create a vested right to appointment. As observed: Service Law—Constitution of India—Articles 320 and 323(2)—Selection of a candidate for post and inclusion of his name in the list does not confer any right to be appointed even if some of vacancies remained unfilled—Filling up of vacancies over and above number of vacancies advertised would be violative of fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.State Of U. P. VS Rajkumar Sharma - 2006 2 Supreme 448
This means candidates cannot demand appointments simply because vacancies exist or the state delays action. The appointing authority holds discretion, especially when public interest demands policy changes.
Several landmark rulings underscore that recommendations or selections do not guarantee jobs:
No Vested Right from Select Lists:Even candidates who are selected for a post and whose names find place in select list, do not get vested right to claim appointment based on the select list.State of A. P. And Govt. Of A. P. VS D. Dastagiri And M. D. Mustaga - 2003 3 Supreme 605 The Court further clarified: the Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the State to appoint a candidate merely because he was selected or recommended, especially when the vacancies are not available or the policy has changed.State of A. P. And Govt. Of A. P. VS D. Dastagiri And M. D. Mustaga - 2003 3 Supreme 605
State's Policy Autonomy: In another case, the State is entitled to take a policy decision either to have prohibition or not to have prohibition in the State and even selected candidates do not have a vested right to appointment if the policy or circumstances change.T. K. Rangarajan VS Government of T. N. - 2003 5 Supreme 256
Employment Not a Bounty: The judiciary has ruled that the right to employment is not a bounty from the State and the employment is not a bounty from them nor can its survival be at their mercy.Krishnendu Biswas VS State of West Bengal - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 641
These decisions highlight that courts refrain from interfering in executive discretion unless arbitrariness is proven.
Petitioners often argue that state inaction—such as not filling vacancies or canceling recruitments—denies their rights. However, courts view this as legitimate policy exercise:
The right to livelihood and employment is a constitutional goal but not an absolute or fundamental right to be enforced through mandamus if the State exercises its discretion.Bholanath Roy VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 1991 0 Supreme(Cal) 249
In labor contexts, even related rights like striking lack fundamental status: The employees have no fundamental right to resort to strike... Strike cannot be justified even on any equitable ground.Utpal Kanti Karan VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 584
Thus, delays or non-appointments due to administrative decisions do not typically trigger fundamental rights violations.
While the general rule favors state discretion, exceptions exist:- Arbitrariness or Mala Fide: Actions that are capricious, discriminatory, or violate statutory procedures may breach Articles 14 and 16. Krishnendu Biswas VS State of West Bengal - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 641- Procedural Lapses: If rules are flouted without justification, mandamus may issue.
However, mere policy changes or inaction grounded in public interest remain unchallenged.
Broader judicial trends reinforce this position. For instance, in cases involving part-time or contractual absorptions, courts have affirmed: Furthermore, there is no fundamental ri... (right to such benefits as fundamental). Udaykumar Neelakanthrao Kulkarni vs State of Karnataka, Rep By, The Principal Secretary Department Of School Education And Literacy - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 441449M. SAKKUBAI W/O BABURAO vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 441457
Contrastingly, in cooperative society elections, the right to franchise is protected as fundamental and cannot be curtailed by bye-laws without statutory backing: The right to exercise franchise is a fundamental right and cannot be taken away except by express provision of law.State Of Rajasthan VS Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 889State of Rajasthan through Registrar, Co-operative Department VS Roop Nagar Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Samiti Ltd. - 2022 Supreme(Raj) 608 This distinction shows employment rights differ from electoral ones.
In pension disputes, post-retiral benefits are treated as property rights under Article 300A, not fundamental but protected against arbitrary deprivation. Ghulam Mohi-Ud-Din Lone VS State of J&K - 2020 Supreme(J&K) 475 Such nuances advise focusing claims on procedural fairness rather than absolute entitlements.
The Supreme Court consistently holds that the right to apply for a government job is not fundamental; it yields to state discretion on recruitment. Inaction or cancellations, when policy-driven, do not infringe constitutional rights. Key takeaways:1. Selection lists confer no vested appointment rights. State of A. P. And Govt. Of A. P. VS D. Dastagiri And M. D. Mustaga - 2003 3 Supreme 6052. Public interest trumps individual claims. T. K. Rangarajan VS Government of T. N. - 2003 5 Supreme 2563. Challenge only arbitrary state actions.
Armed with this knowledge, aspirants can navigate recruitments realistically. Stay informed via reliable sources and prioritize preparation over litigation.
References:1. Krishnendu Biswas VS State of West Bengal - 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 6412. State Of U. P. VS Rajkumar Sharma - 2006 2 Supreme 4483. State of A. P. And Govt. Of A. P. VS D. Dastagiri And M. D. Mustaga - 2003 3 Supreme 6054. Bholanath Roy VS STATE OF WEST BENGAL - 1991 0 Supreme(Cal) 2495. Utpal Kanti Karan VS State of West Bengal - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 584
#GovtJobsIndia, #FundamentalRights, #SupremeCourtRulings
As salary forms part of the property of an individual to attract Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, such right cannot be taken away except by authority of law. By issuance of a mere executive order, the State had no powers to withhold the same. ... As salary and pension form part of property of an individual to attract Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, such right cannot be taken away except by a....
On the basis of such election, they cannot be held to be unconstitutional at a later point in time, because it takes away the right to receive certain benefits. 2. The Apex Court in the case of INDU SHEKHAR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. ... The State Government thought it fit to promulgate an Act to absorb employees working in part-time job oriented courses. ... Furthermore, there is no fundamental ri....
On the basis of such election, they cannot be held to be unconstitutional at a later point in time, because it takes away the right to receive certain benefits. 2. The Apex Court in the case of INDU SHEKHAR SINGH AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. ... The State Government thought it fit to promulgate an Act to absorb employees working in part-time job oriented courses. ... Furthermore, there is no fundamental ri....
It had a “legitimate” or “settled expectation” to obtain right to enjoy the property, etc. Such “settled expectation” can be rendered impossible of fulfillment due to change in law by the legislature. ... So far as grant of relaxation to Doctors are concerned, it is the stand taken by the State that there was overwhelming necessity for recruitment of Doctors in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic and as there was reluctance to join government service with changed conditions due#HL....
A: Yes Q: Please look at cl 5 p 3, point of hire Putrajaya, Malaysia; Do you agree under the terms and conditions of your employment, the Company has the right to transfer you? ... The correct test to apply is whether there was a fundamental breach of the express or implied terms of the contract of employment. ... [46] In the light of the authorities which we have already referred above, we are satisfied that the Industrial Court had erred in law in failing to apply#HL_EN....
The respondents’ apathy strikes at the heart of constitutional morality and offends the doctrine of fairness in State action, rendering the impugned inaction patently unsustainable in law. ... Case No. 141 of 1973-74. Possession of the said land was duly taken on 30th July, 1974, and compensation was disbursed on 27th January, 1980. ... However, after the lapse of nearly four decades, any subsequent nomination of her son as a “family member” cannot confer a legal or equitable #HL_START....
After citing some case law he stated "On the above premise, it would be appreciated all benefits provided under the law would be paid to me forthwith.". ... away from him. ... Please note that changes in job titles may occur as part of our integration program. We will continue to keep you informed as necessary and appropriate. ... Please be informed that I am unable to accept your proposal to relieve me of my position without due consideration to my ....
After citing some case law he stated "On the above premise, it would be appreciated all benefits provided under the law would be paid to me forthwith.". ... away from him. ... This means that when dealing with a complaint of constructive dismissal the Court will have to keep in line with the common law doctrines that apply to alleged breaches of contract (see Pan Global Textiles Bhd, Pulau Pinang v. ... Pending the rationalisation of legal entities within the expanded DPWN Group, #HL_....
After citing some case law he stated "On the above premise, it would be appreciated all benefits provided under the law would be paid to me forthwith.". ... away from him. ... Pending the rationalisation of legal entities within the expanded DPWN Group, please take this letter as effective communication from the Logistics Division of the DPWN Group. Please note that changes in job titles may occur as part of our integration program. ... Pending the rationalisati....
The Court, however, takes note that nowhere at p 27 CLB may it be the notes on the right or on the left did the claimant state that TBC "told me that it would be better to look for a job elsewhere" as stated by the claimant in answer to Question 19 of CLWS. ... The Law [18] The law on constructive dismissal has been clearly stated in the leading case of Wong Chee Hong v. Cathay Organisation (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd . ... [143] At p 18 of the same Notes:- Q : Job at Lincol....
These provisions do not empower any milk union or a primary society to frame bye laws dealing with the procedure of elections, what to say of imposing disqualifications to participate or to vote therein. The right to exercise franchise is a fundamental right and cannot be taken away except by express provision of law. A bare perusal of the said provision, makes it clear that the bye laws shall be framed for subject matters which are enclosed as Schedule-B, which does not deal with any situation governing elections. Sections 19, 20 and 28 of the Act of 2001 are the only prov....
These provisions do not empower any milk union or a primary society to frame bye laws dealing with the procedure of elections, what to say of imposing disqualifications to participate or to vote therein. The right to exercise franchise is a fundamental right and cannot be taken away except by express provision of law. A bare perusal of the said provision, makes it clear that the bye laws shall be framed for subject matters which are enclosed as Schedule-B, which does not deal with any situation governing elections. Sections 19, 20 and 28 of the Act of 2001 are the only prov....
It is finally submitted that the impugned order dated 07.02.2015 does not call for any interference by this Court as the same is an order passed by a competent Court having jurisdiction and by taking into consideration all the relevant factors. It is further submitted that by the inaction of the party to take due steps in time for substitution, a right has accrued upon the respondents and that vested right cannot be taken away lightly. 1 was issued or received and since the application for setting aside abatement as well as condonation of delay were apparently filed in the ....
4.4 Further contention with regard to procedure as prescribed under Section 9 of KLGP Act 2011 is attacked on the ground that same provides for summary trial and under Section 262 of Cr.P.C. no sentence of imprisonment exceeding three months shall be passed in case of conviction under Chapter XX of Cr.P.C. It is contended that right of revision provide under Section 397 Cr.P.C. and right of appeal provide under Section 374 Cr.P.C. is taken away by virtue of Section 9(3) as the orders of the Special Court are final. Whereas, Section 10 of the KLGP Act 2011 prescribes that Cr.P.C. will apply t....
The net result of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the judgments referred above is that the hard earned benefit in the shape of pension and gratuity that accrues to an employee is in the nature of 'property'. It, therefore, follows that to deprive a person of his right to property, the State has to come up with a law within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution of India. The right to property may not be a fundamental right any more but it continues to be a Constitutional right and cannot be taken away without due process of law, as is provided under Article 300A ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
