Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)State Of Maharashtra vs Milind & Ors on 28 November, 2000
Thereafter, the appellant filed Civil Misc. Petition No. 30521 of 2000
in O.P. No. 18774 of 1995 in the High Court for direction to the respondents
to publish the results of the 6th, 7th and 8th semester examinations of the
appellant on whatever condition the Court imposed. He moved the
application as he had completed his course in the year 1996 and had
appeared in all the examinations though under the orders of the Court. It
was pleaded by him that he had become ineligible to apply for admission to
any other professional college as he had become over age. It was further
stated by him that he did not make any false claim as to his caste. Because
of his father is declared caste at that time he was issued the caste certificate.
That the withholding of the appellant's result and consequently his degree
would not give any material advantage to the respondent but on the other
hand the same would cause grave and irreparable loss and hardship to the
appellant and would gravely affect his future career. He relied upon two
judgments of this Court, namely, Kumari Madhuri Patil's case (supra) as
well as a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Milind & Ors., 2001 (1) SCC 4 in which in spite of fact
that caste certificate produced by the candidate was found to be false, the
result of the candidate was directed to be declared with the stipulation that in
future the candidate shall not take any benefit/advantage on the basis of false
caste certificate obtained by him/her.
Rita Mishra And Ors. Etc. Etc. vs Director, Primary Education, Bihar And ... on 23 July, 1987
The point was again examined by a Full Bench of the Patna High
Court in Rita Mishra Vs. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, AIR 1988
Patna 26. The question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public
servant was entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite
the fact that his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal. The
Full Bench held:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kumari Madhuri Patil vs Addl. Commissioner on 2 September, 1994
Pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs.
Additional Commissioner, 1994 (6) SCC 241, the Government of Kerala
constituted a Scrutiny Committee by a notification dated 8.5.1995. The
enquiry into the caste status was referred to the said Scrutiny Committee.
The appellant was duly notified by the said Scrutiny Committee. Initially,
the appellant challenged the authority of the Scrutiny Committee before the
High Court but subsequently participated in the proceedings and entered
appearance through counsel and submitted the documentary evidence in
support of his claim of being Scheduled Caste before the Committee. The
appellant submitted 117 documents. The Scrutiny Committee by an order
dated 18.11.1995 rejected the claim of the appellant in a well considered and
elaborate order. The appellant challenged the order of the Scrutiny
Committee in the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 963 of 1996. The
petition was dismissed by the Division Bench on 26.2.1997 by a reasoned
order. The order of the Scrutiny Committee was upheld. The special leave
petition bearing No. 11199 of 1997 filed against the order of the High Court
was dismissed on 1.5.1998. The review petition in the order of the SLP was
also dismissed on 12.8.1998.
Section 3 in The All India Services Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Ishwar Dayal And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 10 May, 2002
In Ishwar Dayal Sah Vs. State of Bihar, 1987 Lab.I.C. 390, the
Division Bench of the Patna High Court examined the point as to whether a
person who obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate
was entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. In the said
case the employee had obtained appointment by producing a caste certificate
that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community which later on was found
to be false. His appointment was cancelled. It was contended by the
employee that the cancellation of his appointment amounted to removal
from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution and
therefore void. It was contended that he could not be terminated from service
without holding departmental inquiry as provided under the Rules. Dealing
with the above contention, the High Court held that if the very appointment
to the civil post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would
necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311 of the
Constitution can possibly flow. It was held:
1