Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 672 (1.09 seconds)
Documents citing R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 January, 2004

P.Sivaraj vs The General Manager on 18 November, 2016

12.As stated earlier, so far as the case on hand is concerned, as on date, the issue with regard to the community status of the petitioner is still pending before Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent reported in AIR 2004 SC 1469(1) (R.Viswanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and others) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, wherein the issue with regard to the community certificate of the employee therein was settled, cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

A.K.Jayakumar vs The Life Insurance Corporation Of India ... on 18 November, 2016

13.As stated earlier, so far as the case on hand is concerned, as on date, the issue with regard to the community status of the petitioner is still pending before Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent reported in AIR 2004 SC 1469(1) (R.Viswanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and others) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, wherein the issue with regard to the community certificate of the employee therein was settled, cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

C.Lakshmi vs The Canara Bank on 2 December, 2016

11.As stated earlier, so far as the case on hand is concerned, as on date, the issue with regard to the community status of the petitioner is still pending before Scrutiny Committee. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent reported in AIR 2004 SC 1469(1) (R.Viswanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and others), wherein the issue with regard to the community certificate of the employee therein was settled, cannot be made applicable to the present facts of the case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Road vs The Joint Commissioner And Vice on 11 March, 2013

The said Bench has looked into the Constitution Bench judgment and then various other judgments including two larger Bench judgments in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (supra) and Union of India vs. Dattatray Namdeo Mendhekar, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:44:00 ::: Judgment. wp5569.12 21 (supra). Thus, the legal provisions which this Court has to keep in mind while exercising writ jurisdiction viz., Section 10 of Act No. 23 of 2001 were not required to be looked into in the said judgment. It is obvious that the Hon'ble Apex Court has exercised its jurisdiction to mould relief in peculiar facts and as that was being done under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the invalidation of caste claim by Scrutiny Committee was not determinative. The observations in para 15 of said judgment reveal that the question of extending the protection is dependent upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - B P Dharmadhikari - Full Document

Krishna Kant vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 17 October, 2025

103. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai (supra) as well as M. Bhaskaran (supra), and other pronouncements has consistently held that fraud vitiates everything and that an appointment obtained by fraudulent means is non est in the eyes of law. In such circumstances, the individual never acquires the status of a government servant, and therefore cannot invoke the protection under Article 311 of Constitution of India. Termination of service in these cases is not a penalty attracting the requirement of a regular departmental inquiry but merely a declaration of the illegality of the very appointment itself. The plea that Article 311 mandates an inquiry before cancellation of such an appointment is wholly misconceived. Accordingly, it is held that where an appointment is obtained on the basis of fake or forged certificates, the employer is competent to cancel the appointment without holding any inquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution of India, as such an incumbent cannot claim any constitutional protection of tenure.
Allahabad High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - M R Chauhan - Full Document

K. Jeganathan vs Union Of India (Uoi) Rep. By Director ... on 21 April, 2008

Para 10: An identical controversy was again examined in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala which is a decision rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges. The employee in the aforesaid case had got an appointment in the year 1973 against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste. On complaint, the matter was enquired into and the Scrutiny Committee vide its order dated 18-11-1995 held that he did not belong to Scheduled Caste and the challenge raised to the said order was rejected by the High Court and the special leave petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by this Court. He then filed a petition before the Administrative Tribunal praying for a direction not to terminate his services which was allowed, but the order was reversed by the High Court in a writ petition. The employee then filed an appeal in this Court. After a detailed consideration of the matter this Court dismissed the appeal and para 15 of the Report, which is relevant for the decision of the present case, is reproduced below: (SCC p. 115) ...15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eye of the law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Castes. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld up to this Court, he has disqualified himself to hold the post. The appointment was void from its inception.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - K Chandru - Full Document

B B Meti vs South Western Railway on 20 October, 2021

9. The order dated 13.02.2009 issued by Railways stating that since he had secured employment in Railways on the strength of a false community certificate dated 16.01.1984, his appointment in the Railways was void since its inception, in terms of the interpretation given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs. State of Kerala and others, was quashed by this Tribunal on the grounds that it was issued without giving an opportunity to the applicant to represent against the same by issuing a fresh chargesheet.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

J. Jayaraman vs The District Elementary Educational ... on 16 June, 2008

Para 10: "An identical controversy was again examined in R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala which is a decision rendered by a Bench of three learned Judges. The employee in the aforesaid case had got an appointment in the year 1973 against a post reserved for Scheduled Caste. On complaint, the matter was enquired into and the Scrutiny Committee vide its order dated 18-11-1995 held that he did not belong to Scheduled Caste and the challenge raised to the said order was rejected by the High Court and the special leave petition filed against the said order was also dismissed by this Court. He then filed a petition before the Administrative Tribunal praying for a direction not to terminate his services which was allowed, but the order was reversed by the High Court in a writ petition. The employee then filed an appeal in this Court. After a detailed consideration of the matter this Court dismissed the appeal and para 15 of the Report, which is relevant for the decision of the present case, is reproduced below: (SCC p. 115) 15. This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eye of the law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had usurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim the constitutional guarantee given under Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Castes. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld up to this Court, he has disqualified himself to hold the post. The appointment was void from its inception. In the light of the above discussion, the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they should be dealt with leniently must be rejected.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - K Chandru - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next