Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (1.20 seconds)

State Of Haryana & Ors vs Dinesh Kumar on 8 January, 2008

In State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, (2008) 3 SCC 222, the candidate did not disclose his arrest in the attestation form because of which he was denied appointment. The candidate explained that since he was granted bail, he was under the bonafide impression that there was no arrest. The Supreme Court gave the benefit of mistaken impression to the candidate and set aside the finding of deliberate and wilful misrepresentation and concealment of facts. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 140 - A Kabir - Full Document

Commr.Of Police And Ors vs Sandeep Kumar on 17 March, 2011

43. The alleged offence was committed by the petitioner in his prime youth which is also a mitigating factor tilting equity in his favour. Therefore, applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar (supra) and other judgments referred to above, denial of relief to the petitioner, may result in travesty of justice. In the present era of rampant unemployment, depriving an individual from valuable right on certain technical pretext is bound to result in inequality jeopardizing his entire future career. A welfare State, as a model employer, cannot be allowed to jettison legitimate aspirations of a selected incumbent by creating a situation where hopes end in despair.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 385 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next