Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs K.P. Tiwari on 6 September, 2001
37. Similarly in the case of Union of India versus K.P. Tiwari, AIR 2002 SCW 2684 has held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.61 seconds)The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Babulal Dewangan 11 Cra/1241/2000 The ... on 16 January, 2018
40. So far as judgments cited by learned counsel for opposite parties are concerned, Supreme Court in the case of Shesh Mani Shukla (supra) has held that where appointment is in contravention of statutory provision, it would be illegal and thus void ab initio, the said aspect has clearly been considered by Supreme Court itself in Lalit Kumar Verma (supra) therefore there is a distinction between an appointment which is completely in contravention of statutory provision and where the statutory provision has been substantially complied with and only irregularity is noticed. The aforesaid judgment therefore is clearly distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 January, 2004
41. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on judgments rendered in the case of R. Viswantha Pillai (supra). However the said judgment is clearly inapplicable since it pertains to appointment being obtained on the basis of fraud claiming the appointee having belonged to a scheduled caste community where it was found that he did not belong to the aforesaid category. The aforesaid case where appointment has been obtained on the basis of submission of a false caste certificate is clearly distinguishable and inapplicable in the present case.
M.S. Patil vs Gulbarga University And Ors on 27 August, 2010
In the case of M.S. Patil (supra) the petitioner therein had been continuing in service only on account of interim orders passed by the court which was held not to confer any substantive right on the person. Evidently the said judgment does not apply where the petitioner has not continued in service on the basis of any interim order passed by this Court.
Ram Chandra Singh vs Savitri Devi And Ors on 9 October, 2003
43. The aspect of fraud vitiating any solemn act as enunciated in the case of Ram Chandra Singh (supra) would apply in cases where fraud is perpetuated but in the considered opinion of this Court, would not be applicable in the present case where there is no allegation of any fraud on the part of petitioner with the only allegation being of suppression of fact.
Govt. Of A.P. & Ors vs K. Brahmanandam & Ors on 29 April, 2008
45. Learned counsel for opposite parties however has placed reliance on judgment rendered in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and others (supra) in which paragraph 16 is as follows:-
Harjas Rai Makhija (D) Thr.Lrs vs Pushparani Jain & Anr on 2 January, 2017
31. On the aforesaid aspect, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harjas Rai Makhija versus Pushparani Jain, (2017) 2 SCC 797 has held as follows:-
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Md Zamil Ahmed vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 May, 2016
38. The aforesaid aspect has also been dealt with by Hon'ble Suprme Court in the case of Mohd. Jamil Ahmad versus State of Bihar and others, (2016) 12 SCC 342 in following manner:-
Shesh Mani Shukla vs D.I.O.S Deoria & Ors on 31 July, 2009
40. So far as judgments cited by learned counsel for opposite parties are concerned, Supreme Court in the case of Shesh Mani Shukla (supra) has held that where appointment is in contravention of statutory provision, it would be illegal and thus void ab initio, the said aspect has clearly been considered by Supreme Court itself in Lalit Kumar Verma (supra) therefore there is a distinction between an appointment which is completely in contravention of statutory provision and where the statutory provision has been substantially complied with and only irregularity is noticed. The aforesaid judgment therefore is clearly distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case.