Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 204 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Punjab Urban Planning And Development ... vs Karamjit Singh on 15 April, 2019
10. The respondents relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court
passed in Civil Appeal No.3925 of 2019 (Punjab Urban Planning &
Development Authority and Another Vs. Karamjit Singh) have
submitted that the impugned order is proper and no regular enquiry is
necessary because the appointment of the petitioners has been found
illegal as it has been obtained by fraud.
District Primary School Council,Wb vs Mritunjoy Das & Ors on 26 July, 2011
14. The respondents have also relied upon a decision of the Supreme
Court reported in (2011) 15 SCC 111 parties being District Primary
School Council, West Bengal Vs. Mritunjoy Das and others, in
which, the Supreme Court has observed that if any appointment is
obtained by fraud and show-cause notice issued to them alleging fraud
to get the said appointment and opportunity of hearing is also provided
to them, then cancellation of that appointment cannot be said to be in
violation of principles of natural justice. But, the facts of the present
case are not similar to that of the cases upon which the respondents have
placed reliance. This Court is also of the opinion that if any appointment
is obtained by fraud then such appointment cannot be protected in any
manner, but here in this case, considering the existing facts, appointment
was made in the year 2010 and surprisingly, only on the basis of some
manipulation made by the establishment clerk, ignoring the actual facts
and merits of the candidates, even the higher authorities allowed the
petitioners to continue for a period of almost 8 years, but no such defect
revealed before the authorities and even after regularizing them on the
post of Sahayak Adhyapak, Scrutiny Committee has also not considered
this aspect. As such, show-cause notice though issued to the petitioners
calling their original documents, but still it is not on record that they
have been granted opportunity or issued any show-cause notice
intimating them as to how they have obtained appointment and what
type of fraud was committed, although the actual fraud reveals from the
stand taken by the respondents in their reply. Thus, I am of the opinion
that proper opportunity has not been granted to the petitioners and the
enquiry was conducted behind their back without giving any opportunity
of hearing to them to explain their stand. Even before this Court, it is not
shown as to what was the cut-off mark secured by the last selected
26
candidate and what marks were secured by the petitioners.