Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Manish Shukla vs Haryana State Warrhousing Corporation ... on 14 October, 2025 cites

Union Of India vs Anand Kumar Pandey on 18 July, 1994

29. Furthermore, this Court is of the considered view that the reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the judgments in Hanuman Prasad and Others v. Union of India and Another, (1996) 10 SCC 742; Union of India and Others v. Anand Kumar Pandey and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 663; and Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and Others, AIR 2008 SC 3266, is wholly misplaced. In all these cases, the candidates had either acted fraudulently, adopted unfair means, or secured their appointments through misrepresentation; circumstances that are entirely absent in the present matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 57 - K Singh - Full Document

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

29. Furthermore, this Court is of the considered view that the reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the judgments in Hanuman Prasad and Others v. Union of India and Another, (1996) 10 SCC 742; Union of India and Others v. Anand Kumar Pandey and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 663; and Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and Others, AIR 2008 SC 3266, is wholly misplaced. In all these cases, the candidates had either acted fraudulently, adopted unfair means, or secured their appointments through misrepresentation; circumstances that are entirely absent in the present matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 104 - D K Jain - Full Document

Hanuman Prasad & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 6 September, 1996

29. Furthermore, this Court is of the considered view that the reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the judgments in Hanuman Prasad and Others v. Union of India and Another, (1996) 10 SCC 742; Union of India and Others v. Anand Kumar Pandey and Others, (1994) 6 SCC 663; and Regional Manager, Central Bank of India v. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir and Others, AIR 2008 SC 3266, is wholly misplaced. In all these cases, the candidates had either acted fraudulently, adopted unfair means, or secured their appointments through misrepresentation; circumstances that are entirely absent in the present matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 67 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Kamal Nayan Mishra vs State Of M.P. & Ors on 7 December, 2009

25. It must be pointed out that even the subsequent Fact-Finding Inquiry Report dated 26.04.2022 (Annexure R-17) does not record any finding that the petitioner had acted fraudulently or with malice. Moreover, the petitioner, having been appointed in 2010, has rendered more than fifteen years of continuous and satisfactory service to the Respondent-Corporation under the protection of this Court's interim orders. As discussed hereinabove, since there is no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioner, he is entitled to the protection guaranteed under Article 311 of the Constitution of India and his services cannot be terminated without subjecting him to an appropriate disciplinary proceedings as per relevant service rules. A Two-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of M.P. 2010(1) SCT 624 speaking through Justice R. V. Raveendran, has observed as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 401 - Full Document

Varinder Hans vs Union Of India And Ors on 31 July, 2019

27. Moreover, it is settled law that when there is no misrepresentation or concealment by a candidate at the time of appointment, and the Selection Committee, upon due consideration, found him suitable for the post, it would be unjust and unduly harsh to penalize such an employee after he has rendered long years of service merely on the ground that he was lacking in certain prescribed qualifications. The Division Bench of this Court in Varinder Hans v. Union of India 2019(4) SCT 513 relied on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and observed as follows:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - H S Sidhu - Full Document
1