Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.34 seconds)
Chandrajeet Kumar Gond vs High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad ... on 25 January, 2024 cites

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

It has also been submitted that paragraph no. 38.1 of the judgement of Avtar Singh (supra) is not applicable in the case of appellant and the case of appellant is covered with paragraph nos. 38.2 and 38.3 of the judgement of the same case which has not been considered by the learned Single Judge and he illegally dismissed his writ petition. It has also been submitted that due to pendency of a criminal case registered against him, his candidature should not be cancelled but an undertaking should be taken from the selected candidate that if the judgement in the criminal case goes against him, he shall be dismissed from his service and the candidate shall have no objection.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 1443 - A Mishra - Full Document

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam ... vs Anil Kanwariya on 17 September, 2021

In Rajasthan Rajya Vidhut Prasaran Nigam Limited Vs. Anil Kanwaria (2021) 10 SCC 136 where the respondents after qualifying for the post was appointed as a probationer trainee, technical helper in the course of his police verification it had transpired that he had been convicted by the trial court for the offences under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC but was extended benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and released on good conduct. The respondent withheld these facts in his application form for appointment. After distilling the law on appointments obtained by fraud or misrepresentation/ by suppression of material facts. The Hon'ble Apex Court proceeded to quash the appointment and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and upheld the order passed by the Division Bench of High Court stating that the decision of learned Single Judge directing the reinstatement of the respondent- employee was unsustainable in view of the fact that the employee had not disclosed/suppressed the fact that he has been convicted by a competent court and had filed a false declaration in this regard. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court expressed its view that even where there is a subsequent acquittal, the employee having furnished false information/indulged in suppression of material fact of his conviction in a criminal case, cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. Following observation was made regarding credibility of such an employee from the perspective of the employer:
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 64 - M R Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next