Compilation Vol 3 Corrected (1-943).pmd - Goa Public Service ...

Karnataka PSC
18. So also, in a very recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pitta Naveen
Kumar & Others v/s Raja Narasaiah Zangiti & Others [(2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 92, a Bench consisting
of two Hon’ble Judges has observed as under:
“32. The legal position obtaining in this behalf is not in dispute. A candidate does not
have any legal right to be appointed. He in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India
has only a right to be considered therefore.”
19. It is true that in the said two decisions relied on for the applicants, it has been observed that a
candidate has a right to be considered for selection.
20. But, it is trite that any observation made in any decision requires to be considered in the
context in which such observation came to be made. For this, reference can be had to the observations
made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ambica Quarry Works etc. v/s State of Gujarat &
Others (AIR 1987 SC 1073) wherein, it has been held as under:
“18. …….. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the
facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what
it actually decides, and not what logically followed from it.”
21. Reference can also be had to the following observations made in the case of the Regional
Manager and Anr. V. Pawan Kumar Dubey (AIR 1976 SC 1766):
“7. ……………… It is the rule deducible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances
of a case which constitutes its ratio decidendi and not some conclusion based upon facts which may
appear to be similar. One additional or different fact can make a word of difference between conclusions
in two cases even when the same principles are applied in each case to similar facts.
22. Thus, any observation made in any judgment has to be read in the context in which it was
made and as such, the context in which the observation relied on for the applicants came to be made,
requires to be noted. So, let us consider the context in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made
the observation relied on for the applicants.
23. In the case of Dr. Jaiswal (supra), though requisition was sent to the PSC for selection of a
candidate for filling up a vacancy, before the Commission could advertise the post, Government had
communicated the PSC not to proceed with the process of selection because it was examining the
issue of giving an avenue for promotion to that post. In spite of that, PSC went ahead with selection.
449