Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.61 seconds)Thakur Pratap Singh vs Shri Krishna Gupta And Ors. on 2 December, 1955
In Pratap Singh v. Shri Krishna Gupta (AIR 1956 SC 140, 141), the
Apex Court observed that courts should not adopt a technical approach in
dealing with election matters and that "it is the substance that must count
and it must take precedence over mere form". However, while appreciating
the said observations, it is necessary to bear in mind the context in which
they were made. In that case, the issue pertained to the failure of the
candidate to mention his occupation as required under Rule 9(1)(i), on
which the validity of his nomination was challenged. The Court, while
considering the effect of Section 23 of the C.P. and Berar Municipalities
Act, 1922, which provided that any defect or irregularity not affecting the
merits of the case shall not invalidate the proceedings, held that the said
omission did not affect the merits of the case and, therefore, could not
vitiate the nomination.
Rangilal Choudhury vs Dahu Sao And Others on 26 April, 1961
In Rangilal Choudhury v. Dahu Sao and Others (1962 (2) SCR 401),
the Apex Court held as under:
Karnataka Rural Infrastructure ... vs T.P Nataraja on 21 September, 2021
Though the Court in T.P. Nataraja (supra) was
dealing with the Karnataka State Servants (Determination of Age) Act,
1974, the principle laid down therein would equally apply to matters relating
to correction of date of birth in service records. The Court summarised the
legal position as under:
Secretary & Commissioner, Home ... vs R. Kirubakaran on 21 September, 1993
6.8. There is another aspect which needs to be considered from the
perspective of an employee seeking correction of date of birth where the
Rules/Statute permit such correction within a reasonable time, instead of at
the fag end of the career. This position of law is well settled in Karnataka
Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja (2021) 12 SCC
27, wherein earlier decisions in Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran (1994
Supp (1) SCC 155), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas (2011) 9
SCC 664), Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Basavaraju (2016) 15
SCC 781, and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020)
3 SCC 411 were considered.
State Of M.P. & Ors vs Premlal Shrivas on 19 September, 2011
6.8. There is another aspect which needs to be considered from the
perspective of an employee seeking correction of date of birth where the
Rules/Statute permit such correction within a reasonable time, instead of at
the fag end of the career. This position of law is well settled in Karnataka
Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja (2021) 12 SCC
27, wherein earlier decisions in Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran (1994
Supp (1) SCC 155), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas (2011) 9
SCC 664), Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Basavaraju (2016) 15
SCC 781, and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020)
3 SCC 411 were considered.
L.I.C.Of India vs R.Basavaraju @ Basappa on 6 October, 2015
6.8. There is another aspect which needs to be considered from the
perspective of an employee seeking correction of date of birth where the
Rules/Statute permit such correction within a reasonable time, instead of at
the fag end of the career. This position of law is well settled in Karnataka
Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja (2021) 12 SCC
27, wherein earlier decisions in Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran (1994
Supp (1) SCC 155), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas (2011) 9
SCC 664), Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Basavaraju (2016) 15
SCC 781, and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020)
3 SCC 411 were considered.
M/S Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs Shyam Kishore Singh on 5 February, 2020
6.8. There is another aspect which needs to be considered from the
perspective of an employee seeking correction of date of birth where the
Rules/Statute permit such correction within a reasonable time, instead of at
the fag end of the career. This position of law is well settled in Karnataka
Rural Infrastructure Development Limited v. T.P. Nataraja (2021) 12 SCC
27, wherein earlier decisions in Home Department v. R. Kirubakaran (1994
Supp (1) SCC 155), State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal Shrivas (2011) 9
SCC 664), Life Insurance Corporation of India v. R. Basavaraju (2016) 15
SCC 781, and Bharat Coking Coal Limited v. Shyam Kishore Singh (2020)
3 SCC 411 were considered.
Rohit Kumar & Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 23 February, 2023
In the case of Rohit Kumar (supra), the undisputed facts, as is clear
from para 10 of the judgment, was that the candidate was declared
ANKI ANKIT
SAKLANI
T 2026.05.
Pankaj Paswan vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 13 December, 2016
In one of the cases cited as a precedent in the counter affidavit, before
the High Court, Pankaj Paswan vs. State of Bihar Anr., 2015 SCC On
Line Patna 8739, the State had taken a defence that many candidates
applied in more than one place and hence there could be deliberate
tweaking in the date of birth to take advantage of the selection process in
more than one district or region. It is very important to notice that there is
no such plea taken in the present case. If any such device or trick had
been adopted, the State would have easily detected the same and placed
the same before the Court. The fact that the same has not been done
shows that there was no trick or device resorted to by the appellant. It is a
trivial error which appears to be a genuine and bona fide mistake. It will
be unjust to penalise the appellant for the same.