Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.24 seconds)
Pradeep Kumar vs General Manager N C Rly on 27 February, 2026 cites

Pawan Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 11 January, 2023

12.​ It is clarified at this stage that the case laws relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant do not provide any support to the applicant's case. In those cases, the discrepancies in the application forms were mainly related to incorrect disclosure of the date of birth, and in such circumstances the departments were directed to consider the candidature of the applicants and to issue appointment letters. However, in the case of Satish Kumar (supra), the candidature of the candidate was cancelled on account of incorrect disclosure of category in the online application form, and the Original Application filed against the said order was dismissed.
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 4 - S K Kait - Full Document

Secy. Deptt. Of Home Secy.A.P. & Ors vs B. Chinnam Naidu on 9 February, 2005

"8.1 In the case of Secretary, Department of Home Secretary Vs. B. Chinnam Naidu, 2005 (2) SLJ 233 this Court has observed that the object of requiring information in the attestation form and the declaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to enter into or continue in service. It is further observed that when a candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false information, he cannot claim any right for appointment or continuance in service.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 85 - A Pasayat - Full Document

S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993

13.​ It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eye of the law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." [Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994) 1 SCC 1: AIR 1994 SC 853.]
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1512 - K Singh - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Major General Madan Lal Yadav [Retd.] on 22 March, 1996

25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with law, the subsequent conduct of party cannot sanctify the same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus - a foundation being removed, the superstructure falls. person having done wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar of any law to frustrate the maxim nullus commodum caprere potest de injuria sua lawful trial by a competent court. In such a case the legal propria applies. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. [Vide Union of India v Major General Madan Lal Yadav (1996) 4 SCC 127:1996 SCC (Cri) 592: AIR 1996 SC 1340 and Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056.] Nor can a person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing (jus ex injuria non oritur).
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 225 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1   2 Next