Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)
Yogesh Bharti vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 November, 2020 cites

Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016

12. While considering the question of suppression of relevant information or false information in regard to criminal prosecution, arrest or pendency of criminal case(s) against the candidate, in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others(2016) 8 SCC 471, three-Judges Bench of this Court summarized the conclusion in para (38). As per the said decision in para (38.5), (SCC p. 508) ''38.5.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 1443 - A Mishra - Full Document

Smt. Naseem Imran Mohammed Siddik vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 8 December, 2000

17. We must observe at this stage that there is nothing on record to suggest that the decision taken by the concerned authorities in rejecting the candidature of the respondent was in any way actuated by mala fides or suffered on any other count. The decision on the question of suitability of the respondent, in our considered view, was absolutely correct and did not call for any interference. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the decisions rendered by the Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and dismiss Writ Petition No.9412 of 2013 preferred by the respondent. No costs.'' The Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharashtra and others passed in C.A. No. 10571 of 2018, by order dated 12-10-2018 has held as under :-
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 32 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Commissioner Of Police And Anr vs Mehar Singh on 2 July, 2013

17. In a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in Mehar Singh case, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In the case in hand, there is nothing to suggest that the decision of the Screening Committee is mala fide. The decision of the Screening Committee that the respondents are not suitable for being appointed to the post of Constable does not call for interference. The Tribunal and the High Court, in our view, erred in setting aside the decision of the Screening Committee and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 370 - Full Document

Arvind Gurjar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 October, 2016

" Decision of Criminal Court on the basis of compromise or an acquittal cannot be treated that the candidate possesses good character, which may make him eligible, as the criminal proceedings are with the view to find culpability of commission of offence whereas the appointment to the civil post is in view of his suitability to the post. The test for each of them is based upon different parameters and therefore, acquittal in a criminal case is not a certificate of good conduct to a candidate. The competent Authority has to take a decision in respect of the suitability of candidate to discharge the functions of a civil post and that mere acquittal in a criminal case would not be sufficient to infer that the candidate possesses good character. Division Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.No.5887/2016 (Arvind Gurjar vs. State of M.P.) is overruled.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 47 - S Abhyankar - Full Document

Sandeep Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2019

Another Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.367/2015 (Sandeep Pandey vs. State of M.P. and others) is also overruled. Jurisdiction of the High Court in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is to examine the decision-making process than to act as Court of appeal to substitute its own decision. In appropriate case, if the Court finds decision- making process is arbitrary or illegal, the Court will direct the Authority for reconsideration rather than to substitute the decision of the competent Authority with that of its own.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 20 - R K Srivastava - Full Document
1   2 Next