Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 314 (1.93 seconds)
Documents citing Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors vs Ram Ratan Yadav on 26 February, 2003

Madan Lal Poonia S/O Shri Harlal Poonia vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 10 December, 2012

In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan case the position was the reverse. There the candidate took the stand that as there was no conviction, his negative answers to columns 12 and 13 were not wrong. This Court did not accept the stand that requirement was conviction and not prosecution in view of the information required under columns 12 and 13 as quoted above. The requirement was prosecution and not conviction. The logic has 9 Applicable here. The requirement in the present case is conviction and not prosecution.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri Kishan Pal Singh S/O Shri Bhola ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through Chief ... on 14 March, 2007

In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangalhan case the position was the reverse. There the candidate took the stand that as there was no conviction, his negative answers to columns 12 and 13 were not wrong. This Court did not accept the stand that requirement was conviction and not prosecution in view of the information required under columns 12 and 13 as quoted above. The requirement was "prosecution" and not "conviction". The logic has application here. The requirement in the present case is "conviction" and not "prosecution".
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 37 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Hariom on 2 November, 2006

12. As discussed above, in the verification roll in the present case, there was no column or no question pertaining to pendency of a criminal case against a candidate and the only question i.e., question No. 9 related to the conviction of a candidate in a criminal case of an offence was there. The facts of the present case, therefore, are different from the aforesaid two cases of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. Ram Ratan Yadav and AP. Public Service Commission v. Koneti Venkateshwarulu and Ors. (supra). In our considered opinion, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was under no obligation to narrate all facts regarding the pendency of a criminal case and his omission to do so docs not amount to suppression or concealment of any material information. Moreover, although subsequently conviction of the Trial Court ended in acquittal in the appeal, the fact that the respondent was acquitted in the criminal case ultimately is a relevant factor for the Court to take into consideration for deciding whether the order of removal should be sustained or should be set-aside. There was nothing wrong for the Tribunal to have taken this fact of exoneration of the respondent of the charges in a criminal case together with all other facts for deciding to set-aside the order of removal passed against him.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next