Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.49 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rabindra Nath Mahata vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 7 July, 2005
VI(a) for that the petitioner is entitled to appear in the said
interview even if the name of the petitioner is not sponsored by the
concerned employment exchange and in view of the aforesaid judgment
of the Full Bench reported in 2005 (2) CLJ (Cal) 161 (Sri Rabindra Nath
Mahato vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.), the concerned authority can
allow the petitioner to appear in the interview even if the name of the
petitioner is not sent by the concerned employment exchange."
A compiled copy of amendment application, accordingly, has been filed
by reaffirming the same. This amendment application was allowed.
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
That concept that equality of opportunity in
employment is the basic features of the Constitution in terms of Article 14 and
16 has been summed up by Jagganath Rao,J. in the three Judges' Bench in the
case Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 168 by holding
"neither Parliament nor the Legislatures could transgress the basic feature of the
Constitution, namely, the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of which
Article 16(1) is facet".
Indra Sawhney & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 August, 1991
Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy speaking for the majority in the
case Indra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1992) Suppl.
(3) SCC 217, while acknowledging that equality and equal opportunity is a basic
feature of our Constitution explained and exalted the position of the said
Constitutional provision.
Gaya Nath Rajbanshi vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 6 March, 2007
This point has been considered by the Division Bench, wherein I was a
member, in the case Gaya Nath Rajbanshi vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.,
reported in 2007 (2) CLJ (Cal) 105 by holding that individual non-sponsored
candidate has no right to appear in the interview unless there is any
advertisement of the vacancy inviting the eligible candidates to apply by the
employer and the High Court being the protector of the Constitution should not
allow any individual non-sponsored candidate to appear in the interview when
there is no advertisement of the vacancy by the employer by any order in a writ
application.
Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi And Ors on 9 October, 2003
The Apex Court was also of the same view as passed in the cases
Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi & Ors., reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319, Vijay
Shekhar & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2004) 4 SCC 666.
T. Vijendradas & Another vs M. Subramanian & Others on 9 October, 2007
About
effect of an order, which is outcome of exercising fraud in a subsequent
proceeding, the Apex Court has answered the point by holding that the later
proceeding also will be a nullity in terms of the judgment passed in the case T.
Vijendradas vs. M. Subramanian, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 751. It is now proved
that writ petitioner, Sri Sukhen Sarkar, exercised fraud upon the Court to appear
in the interview and obtained an order by making the Court to believe that many
junior candidates were sponsored being the order dated 22nd August, 2001
passed by Ashim Kumar Banerjee,J. Since the basis of the order is on false
averment by making the Court to believe, the contention made in paragraph 7 as
already quoted as real state of affairs, it goes to the root of the matter and
accordingly his appearance in the interview and empanelment thereto, all have
been vitiated and no relief could be granted to him by allowing his subsequent
writ application seeking approval of the panel.
Hamza Haji vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 18 August, 2006
The impact of availing any order
on exercise of fraud and consideration of that issue, subsequently by the Court
has been dealt with in details by the Apex Court in the case Hamza Haji vs. State
of Kerala & Anr., reported in (2006) 7 SCC 416, wherein the appellant procured
an order of the Forest Tribunal by exercising fraud, namely, by contending his
eligibility to retain the land that the land was under his self cultivation though it
was sold at the material time. In appeal, High Court dismissed the appeal as
preferred by the State. A statutory review filed before the Tribunal failed.
Subsequently, review application to the High Court also was dismissed. But after
long so many years High Court entertained a writ application filed by a body of
citizens pointing out the fraud, which made the order of Tribunal, nullity. The
High Court quashed the decision of Tribunal, set aside its own order of dismissal
of appeal exercising power of review as the decision was obtained exercising
fraud. Supreme Court did not interfere with the order and held that the second
review application was justified as the initial first order by the Tribunal allowing
retention of forest land was an order obtained by exercising fraud upon the
Tribunal. The same principle could be applied in this case. Sri Sukhen Sarkar
made the Court to believe when he moved his writ application W.P. No. 12311 (W)
of 2001 that the persons who registered their names in the Employment
Exchange after him have been sponsored. The Court believed it and passed the
order of his appearance in the interview by passing an order dated 22nd August,
2001. The very basis/foundation of the order was by exercising fraud. So Sri
Sarkar is not entitled to get any relief and/or benefit from the writ Court applying
the aforesaid principle of law when someone exercise fraud upon the Court and
the principle that writ petitioner must come in clean hand before the Court.
Hence, writ application W.P. No. 12311 (W) of 2001 has no merit for
consideration as from the records it appears that there was no discrimination
made to sponsor the name. The writ application, accordingly, stand dismissed
and the interim order directing appearance passed on 22nd August, 2001,
accordingly, stand cancelled.
U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee vs Dr. B. Sheetal Nandwani And Ors on 31 August, 1990
From the writ application of Sri Purnendu Biswas being W.P. No. 409
(W) of 2003 it appears that he was a duly sponsored candidate being supported
by interim order of Court aforesaid for the post in question in terms of the
guideline issued by Director of School Education, West Bengal for filling up the
non-teaching post of an aided school. He has been empanelled as a third
candidate of the panel. Having regard to my finding that Sri Sukhen Sarkar was
not at all eligible to appear in the interview and his appearance was on exercise
of fraud upon the Court by taking an interim order on misrepresentation, despite
his position as first empanelled candidate, he cannot claim his appointment, as
such, this Court not only is quashing his appearance in the interview as the writ
application has been dismissed but also result of such, namely, his empanelment
as a first candidate of the panel, which is vitiated for all purpose as nullity due to
fraud as exercised. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case
U.P. Junior Doctors Action Committee vs. DRB Sheetal Nandwan, reported in
(1990) 4 SCC 633. Second candidate of the panel has already waived his right for
appointment by filing an affidavit and his writ application has been disposed of
accordingly. Having regard to such position, the writ petitioner, Sri Purnendu
Biswas, who has been empanelled as a third candidate of the panel now would be
entitled to get the benefit of appointment. In the normal situation, the Court
would have directed recasting of panel by deleting the names of candidates
empanelled as first and second candidate and thereafter to prepare a panel
consisting the names of three candidates by empanelling the name of the writ
petitioner, Sri Purnendu Biswas, as first candidate on elevating his position from
third to first in the panel. But as it is a case of long back of the year 2001, when
the interview was held and after long seven years, this Court is of the view that
order of recasting of panel would be nothing but a technical formalities, whereby
District Inspector of Schools concerned will only elevate the position of writ
petitioner, Sri Purnendu Biswas, as a first candidate of the panel and will select
other two names who appeared in the interview, but got less marks than Sri
Purnendu Biswas to place them as second and third candidate of the panel.