Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 2198 (2.85 seconds)
Documents citing Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016

Suraj Dayanand More vs Posts on 4 May, 2026

There is discretion with the employer to terminate the services. Character, conduct and antecedents do have some impact on the nature of employment and there has to be due consideration of said aspects which is done in the instant case. The action in the present matter is taken for non-disclosure of specific information asked for. The case of Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016, (2016) 8 SCC 47 wherein it is held that For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed and such specific information asked for by clause 15(i) and 15(ii) of attestation verification form is not disclosed by the applicant in the present case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

India Ashok Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 March, 2021

Undisputedly, the petitioner suppressed or failed to disclose the information regarding his involvement in Crime No.132 of 2007 on the file of Station House Officer, Markapuram Police Station and facing trial in C.C.No.454 of 2007 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Markapuram, for various offences referred supra. The notification was issued on 06.06.2008 and Crime No.132 of 2007 was registered against this petitioner on 02.08.2007. Thus, by the date of submitting application by this petitioner, he is already arrayed as accused in Crime No.132 of MSM,J WP.No.25211 of 2020 12 2007 and facing trial in C.C.No.454 of 2007 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge, Markapuram. But, obviously for reasons known to the petitioner, the said information was not disclosed in the application itself. The involvement of this petitioner was detected for the first time only during antecedent verification based on the attestation form submitted by this petitioner of his provisional selection. On the ground of suppression of material fact, more particularly, involved by this petitioner in crime, his provisional selection was cancelled. The basis for cancellation of selection is the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others (referred supra) and H.Abdul Sajid v. State Level Police Recruitment Board and others (referred supra).
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Sachin vs Honble The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh ... on 4 November, 2025

30. We have read and understood the broad principles laid down in Satish Chandra Yadav [Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, (2023) 7 SCC 536 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 43] with the following crucial paragraph in Avtar tar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] : (SCC pp. 506 506-507, para 35) "35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer oyer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in 12 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC 2025:MPHC-JBP:55452 reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases."
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Saurabh Sahai vs State Of U.P. And Others on 27 February, 2025

30. We have read and understood the broad principles laid down in Satish Chandra Yadav [Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India, (2023) 7 SCC 536 : (2023) 2 SCC (L&S) 43] with the following crucial paragraph in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] : (SCC pp. 506-507, para 35) "35. Suppression of "material" information presupposes that what is suppressed that "matters" not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases."
Allahabad High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ex Const Dvr Mukesh Kumar Raigar Son Of ... vs Union Of India on 17 February, 2021

The petitioner is directed to file a detailed representation before the Appointing Authority for re-consideration of his case in the context of judgment of Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) and of this Court in the case of Kamal Singh Meena (supra). The Appointing Authority is directed to decide the representation filed by the petitioner by reasoned and speaking order with reference to the judgments as indicate above, within a period of eight weeks from the receipt of the representation.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ankeet vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti on 26 February, 2026

In Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, the Hon'ble Apex Court authoritatively held that where a criminal case is pending and the candidate has truthfully disclosed the same, the employer has the discretion to consider the nature of the offence, the stage of the case, and the overall suitability of the candidate. It was further observed that the employer Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.03.03 SHARMA 17:02:16 +05'30' Item No. 50/C-4 16 OA No. 2535/2024 may be justified in not appointing such a candidate and is not required to wait till the outcome of the criminal case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Shetan Singh on 21 November, 2025

The Apex Court, after considering the aforesaid judgment and all those Apex Court judgments up to that date, including Avtar Singh (Supra) framed two issues for consideration as to whether the State was justified in cancelling the selection of the appellant and what relief he is entitled to. In the said case also, the appellant therein did not disclose his previous criminal case registered against him in the verification form.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - V Rusia - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 4 August, 2017

14. Considering the facts aforesaid and in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India (supra), I find that the petitioner has intentionally suppressed the facts with regard to his criminal Patna High Court CWJC No.5325 of 2014 dt.04-08-2017 9/9 antecedent and the petitioner has got multiple criminal cases pending against him, therefore, the employer has rightly cancelled the provisional appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable.
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P K Jha - Full Document

Arun Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. ... on 12 May, 2025

12. In the present case, without even considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner in the first information report, merely on the ground of directions of the Apex Court, the candidature of the petitioner has been cancelled. Accordingly, exercise of power in the present case is contrary to the directions of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others (supra) and hence the impugned order dated 13.08.2021 is illegal and arbitrary and is hereby set aside.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K S Pawar - Full Document

Husain Son Of Late Mitthu Aged 31 Years vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 13 January, 2017

The respondents are directed to reconsider and decide the case of the applicant in the light of the ratio decided by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) and also by the Honble High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in the case of Murari Lal Meena vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next