Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)
The State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Bharati Ghorai & Ors on 18 June, 2015 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs Sukhen Chandra Das on 15 October, 2008

The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned Advocate of the appellants in the case of Manoj Kumar vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra) and Union of India and Others vs. Sukhen Chandra Das (supra) have no manner of application in the facts of the present case since in the present case, the candidates concerned did not suppress any material facts with regard to their character and antecedents and/or date of birth etc. It is also not the case of the appellants that the respondents-writ petitioners herein did not possess the requisite qualifications. The services of the respondents-writ petitioners were terminated by the appellants only on the ground of non-disclosure of the graduate qualification although no extra benefit was granted to the respondents-writ petitioners for the said higher qualification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 17 - L S Panta - Full Document

Rina Dutta & Ors vs Anjali Mahato & Ors on 18 May, 2010

"When a particular qualification is laid down in an advertisement relating to a distinct class of candidates, the candidate possessing a qualification higher than that advertised can ordinarily not be debarred or disqualified, but it is open to the employer to make a rule providing for disqualification of candidates possessing qualification higher than the prescribed qualification, but the burden would be on the employer to justify such a rule."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 2 - Cited by 42 - T Sen - Full Document

Manoj Kumar vs Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 26 July, 2010

The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited by the learned Advocate of the appellants in the case of Manoj Kumar vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (supra) and Union of India and Others vs. Sukhen Chandra Das (supra) have no manner of application in the facts of the present case since in the present case, the candidates concerned did not suppress any material facts with regard to their character and antecedents and/or date of birth etc. It is also not the case of the appellants that the respondents-writ petitioners herein did not possess the requisite qualifications. The services of the respondents-writ petitioners were terminated by the appellants only on the ground of non-disclosure of the graduate qualification although no extra benefit was granted to the respondents-writ petitioners for the said higher qualification.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 66 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Mukul Samanta (Maity) vs State Of West Bengal & Others on 8 May, 2014

2) A.S.T. 205 of 2014 with A.S.T.A. 150 of 2014 4 (Mukul Samanta (Maity) vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.) Having heard the learned Advocate of both the parties and going through the impugned judgement and order under appeal, we find that the Learned Single Judge considered the rival contentions of the parties and decided the issues strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the earlier decisions of this Court.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 1 - Cited by 6 - P K Chattopadhyay - Full Document
1