Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (0.43 seconds)
Vikram Singh Negi vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 3 October, 2024 cites

State Of Maharashtra & Ors vs Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar & Anr on 31 October, 2006

17. Recently, in State of Maharashtra v. Ravi Prakash Babulalsing Parmar [(2007) 1 SCC 80 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 5] dealing with a similar situation, this Court has observed thus: (SCC p. 89, para 23) "23. The makers of the Constitution laid emphasis on equality amongst citizens. The Constitution of India provides for protective discrimination and reservation so as to enable the disadvantaged group to come on the same platform as that of the forward community. If and when a person takes an undue advantage of the said beneficent provision of the Constitution by obtaining the benefits of reservation and other benefits provided under the Presidential Order although he is not entitled thereto, he not only plays a fraud on the society but in effect and substance plays a fraud on the Constitution. When, therefore, a certificate is granted to a person who is not otherwise entitled thereto, it is entirely incorrect to contend that the State shall be helpless spectator in the matter."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 118 - S B Sinha - Full Document

R. Vishwanatha Pillai vs State Of Kerala & Ors on 7 January, 2004

33. From the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that charge sheet was issued to petitioners alleging that the educational certificates/degree produced by them at the time of appointment was found to be fake. Petitioners now allege that the disciplinary inquiry was not done strictly as per the Discipline & Appeal Rules, applicable to State employees, and there were some lapses here & there. The question is whether a person, who is not eligible for appointment for want of necessary qualification, if 2024:UHC:7331 manages to get appointed by playing fraud, can claim protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai (Supra) and various other judgments referred to above has held that a person, who has secured appointment under the State by playing fraud, cannot claim protection of Article 311.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 410 - Full Document

Regional Mangaer, Centaral Bank Of ... vs Madhulika Guru Prasad Dahir And Ors on 25 July, 2008

16. Similarly, in the case of "Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir & others, reported in (2008) 13 SCC 170, Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case, where a person had obtained appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, and it was held that fraud vitiates everything and, therefore, if a person has continued to work on the post for over 20 years, even then, having obtained appointment on the basis of false and forged caste certificate, cannot claim any equity or benefit on that basis. Paragraph nos.14, 15, 16, 17 & 18 of the said judgment are extracted below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 104 - D K Jain - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan on 20 November, 1990

He further submits that, before passing the termination order, report of the Inquiry Officer was not supplied to petitioner, which is in violation of law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Union of India & others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 and also in the case of "Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others Vs. B. Karunakar and others, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 668 - R B Misra - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next