Status of jainendra singh case in hon'ble supreme court
Rajeswariii
(Querist) 29 January 2016
This query is : Resolved
Sir, Regarding Jainendra Singh Vs State of UP (Service Matter) (Civil Appeal 5671/2012) in the Hon'ble Supreme Court is referred to Larger Bench in Supreme Court in 2012. The Matter is disposed on 13.04.2015. But, I am unable to get any more information further in Supreme Court Website.
I request you to let me know what is the judgment given by larger bench in this issue?? I request you to kindly let me know as it is very important for my brother who is terminated from Bank service citing non disclosure of pending criminal case against him at the time of appointment. (The case i finally resolved in Lok Adalat)
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 29 January 2016
contact SC lawyer.
Anirudh
(Expert) 29 January 2016
The matter already stands disposed of on 13.4.2015 as the case has been withdrawn by the Advocate.
The order of the court is as under:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A.No.4 of 2015
IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 5671 OF 2012.
JAINENDRA SINGH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.TR.PRINL.SEC.HOME & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant prays for withdrawal of this appeal. This civil appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
I.A.No.4 of 2015 is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
.......................J (T.S. THAKUR)
.......................J (R. BANUMATHI)
NEW DELHI DATED 13th APRIL, 2015.
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.2 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. 4/2015 in
Civil Appeal No(s). 5671/2012
JAINENDRA SINGH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P.TR.PRINL.SEC.HOME & ORS. Respondent(s)
(for withdrawal of civil appeal and office report)
Date: 13/04/2015
This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
For Appellant(s) Dr. J. P. Dhanda,Adv. Ms. Raj Rani Dhanda,Adv. Mr. Vineet Dhanda,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,Adv. Mr. Sudeep Kumar,Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant prays for withdrawal of this appeal. This civil appeal is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
I.A.No.4 of 2015 is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(MAHABIR SINGH) (SHASHI SAREEN)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
The order can be accessed from the Supremecourt website or by typing any of the following links:
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/caseno_new_alt.asp
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/querycheck_page2.asp
Rajeswariii
(Querist) 29 January 2016
Thank You Sir. Can you Please mention any judgement form Hon'ble Supreme Court related to favourable judgement favouring a candidate who has given NIL information regarding non disclosure of a pending criminial case at the time of appointment (The case which is closed later before termination)
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 29 January 2016
Well advised, can get the decision by visiting given links.
Anirudh
(Expert) 29 January 2016
I am not sure what your fact situations are and what exactly that you are looking for.
In any way, please check up whether any of the following case laws are of any help to you.
INDISCRETION BY YOUNG PERSONS are to be condoned.
Commissioner of Police & Others v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644 the respondent therein, in response to the advertisement issued in January 1999 for filling up of certain posts of Head Constables (Ministerial), applied on 24.02.1999 but did not mention in his application form that he was involved in a O.A.No.1413/2015 7 criminal case. The respondent qualified in all the tests for selection to the post of temporary Head Constable (Ministerial). On 03.04.2001 he filled the attestation form wherein for the first time he disclosed that he had been involved in a criminal case with his tenant which, later on, had been compromised in 1998 and he had been acquitted. After issuing a show cause notice and after considering the representation of the respondent, his candidature was cancelled. The Apex Court while observing that “the modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life” and that “Youth often commits indiscretions, which are often condoned” and that “the offence was not a serious offence like murder, decoity or rape and hence, a more lenient view should be taken”, dismissed the appeal of the department.
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr. V. Neeraj Kumar and Anr. in WP(C) 1004/2012; and CM 2212/2012 dated 24.02.2012 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi - the respondent had applied for the post of Teacher (Primary) in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi pursuant to advertisement by the DSSSB. Clause 8 of the advertisement prescribed the conditions for invalid applications. One of the clauses, mentioned in the relevant advertisement, for treating the application as invalid was that “Signature in block capital letters in English or in different languages and in different style/mode”. Although the respondent got more marks than the last selected person, he was not selected on the ground that he had signed the application in capital letters in English. The Hon’ble High Court, while upholding the view taken by the Tribunal in OA No.3095/2010 (which was filed by the respondent herein) held that although the stipulation
Rohit Kumar v. Union of India & Anr. in CWP No.13730/2012 dated 27.07.2012 of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. - the petitioner, while taking the examination, has wrongly darkened his roll number in the ORM sheet whereas in letters he has rightly mentioned the roll number as 160150291 because of which he was awarded zero marks.
“It is admitted position on record that while filling in OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) sheet petitioner had wrongly darkened the roll number although in letters he had rightly filled his roll number. When seen from other angle petitioner has secured 75.25% marks, this shows that the candidate appears to be quite meritorious and, therefore, for such mistake his career should not be jeopardise. It is stated that main written examination for the post for which the petitioner had applied i.e. Sub Inspector in the Central Armed Police Forces and Assistant Sub Inspector in Central Industrial Security Force is fixed for 29.07.2012, therefore, direction is issued to the respondents to accept the candidature of the petitioner and permit him to participate in the main written examination. It would not be out of way to mention here that the preliminary written test which was held by the respondents was for the short listing of the candidates and clearing of the same would not confer any benefit upon the petitioner in the final selection which would now initiate as the main written examination to be conducted by the respondents on 29.07.2012. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.”
Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.657/2012 dated 02.01.2013 of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur- the petitioner therein, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.10.2010 for filling up of the post of Constable in various disciplines in several districts of the State of Rajasthan, applied to face the process of selection. In the final selection, his roll number was not shown in the successful candidates list, he submitted number of representations and ultimately he was informed that `0’ (zero) marks were given in the written test as he did not mention his gender in the O.M.R. Sheet.
“In the case on hand, as already stated earlier, the respondents were having all necessary details pertaining to gender of the petitioner and the category for which he applied, as such, there was no need to reject his candidature. The appropriate course available was to permit him to rectify the error. In view of the discussion made above, the minor error committed by the petitioner while filling in O.M.R. sheet deserves condonation and the answer-sheet of the petitioner deserves to be evaluated on merits. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to rectify the error in O.M.R. sheet and further to examine the same on merits. If the petitioner secures marks above the cutoff-marks, then his candidature be considered for recruitment to the post of Constable in district Jaipur (Rural). No order as to costs.”
OA No.2063/2012 [Ravindra Malik v. Staff Selection Commission & Others] decided on 13.02.2013 of the Principal Bench of the CAT - the applicant therein while coding the particulars on the OMR Answer Sheet, coded the Ticket/Seat No. as 2201023 instead of the right Ticket No. of 2109123, therefore, on applying the condition at Para 9(B) of the Notice dated 19.03.2011, the answer sheet was not evaluated and zero marks have been awarded to the applicant.
“26. The applicant himself committed a mistake by not coding his Ticket number correctly on his OMR Answer Sheet cannot throw blame on the Invigilator by stating that it is for the Invigilator to verify whether all the particulars have been filled properly or not before affixing his signature on the OMR Answer Sheet. 27. However, as the applicant’s OMR Answer Sheet for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination has already been evaluated by the OMR machine, and awarded 129 marks to him for the said paper, and as per the marks announced by the respondents vide Annexure A5 and Annexure A6, the applicant is eligible to be placed in the merit list for the post of Inspector (Central Excise) against the vacancy of Inspector (Central Excise) which was directed to be kept vacant by this Tribunal and as held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Neeraj Kumar’s case (supra), that the instructions regarding filling up of the OMR Answer Sheets, in the absence of allegations of any mal-practices, are merely directory and not mandatory and in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sandeep Kumar’s case (supra) that the approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people, we are of the considered opinion that the OA deserves to be allowed. 28. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and for the aforesaid reasons, the OA is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) or to any other post, as per his merit, after taking into the marks awarded to the applicant for Paper-1 of Tier-II examination as per Annexure A5 coupled with the marks awarded to him under Annexure A6, if otherwise eligible, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 29. However, it is made cl ear that the applicant will get all his benefits such as salary, seniority, etc. prospectively, i.e., from the date of appointment only. 30. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.”
Arvind Kumar Kajla v. UOI & Others OA No.1802/2012 decided on 30.10.2013 of the Principal Bench of the CAT - the applicant therein, although had entered his roll number correctly at two places, forgot to code it and for this trivial error, the respondents gave him `zero’ marks in the relevant paper, thus, disqualified him.
“10. The only reason for non-consideration of the applicant for the post of IO seems to be that he failed to enter the coding for his roll number though he did enter the roll number correctly. In fact, from Annexure R-4, it is clear that he had coded the ticket number but somehow missed coding the roll number. Therefore, it is for consideration whether he deserves any relief in view of the fact that this was a trivial error committed by him at the time of taking the exam. It is a fact that while taking the exams, slight errors can happen as the examinees are under lot of stress at that point of time. There has been no intention of the applicant to hide any facts or give any misleading facts. He had also indicated his roll number and ticket number correctly. Perhaps, while inspecting his answer sheet, the invigilator should have been more careful and had it been so, the mistake could have been rectified then and there. As has been noted above, according to his calculation, based on correct answer sheets the applicant would be able to obtain the total of 286 marks i.e. well above the minimum cut off marks. It is not fair that job opportunity to a young person should be denied due to just a trivial mistake committed by him at the time of the examination when the candidates are under different levels of stress. 11. We have also gone through various orders/ judgments cited by the applicant and the respondents and there are clearly two views taken in these matters. Moreover, the facts in each case are not also exactly similar. In Commissioner of Police and others Vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, the Honble Supreme Court held as follows: “....When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.” When the Apex Court has even overlooked indiscretions made by youth perhaps a lenient view needs to be taken in the present case, where no indiscretion has been committed, but just a minor mistake of not coding the roll number. A little alertness on the part of the invigilator would have helped avert the situation. We, therefore, feel that there is merit in the OA and the candidature of the applicant needs to be considered. 12. We, therefore, direct the respondents to evaluate Part II of answer sheet of the applicant, accord marks and declare it. If the applicant scores above the cut off marks, he should be invited for PET/ Medical Test/ Interview and if he qualifies in them, appointed as IO in NCB. This exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this order.
Subhanta Devi v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11269/2011, dated 13.05.2014 of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur. - the petitioner therein, filed the writ petition to evaluate the answer sheet/OMR Sheets and declare the result accordingly and consider their candidature for being appointed on the post of Constable (General), if otherwise found suitable. The grievance of the petitioner was that though he attempted all the answers in the answer sheets/OMR sheets but due to minor mistake on his part, his OMR sheet had not been evaluated and therefore, the case of the petitioner has not been considered for appointment. The Hon’ble High Court held that minor omissions should not come in the way of evaluation of OMR sheets of the candidates. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of.
Ms. Kritika Raj v. Staff Selection Commission (Hqrs.) OA O.A.No.1413/2015
indiscretions of young persons are to be condoned
Rajeswariii
(Querist) 01 February 2016
Thank You Anirudh Sir, My Query was "Are there any Judgements from Hon'ble Supreme or High Courts which took lenient view on the candidate who has not disclosed the pending criminal cases agaisnt him at the time of appointment which lead to his termination." like Commissioner of Police & Others v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) which you have mentioned in the beginning
Anirudh
(Expert) 01 February 2016
That itself is a decision by Supreme Court only.
Rajeswariii
(Querist) 01 February 2016
Sir, I mean to say any other decision apart from the above judgement??
Rajeswariii
(Querist) 03 February 2016
Sir, Except Sandeep Kumar case mentioned in the top, no other case seems to relevant to "Candidate getting relief from Court regarding non disclosure of pending criminal case at the time of appointment."
Please refer such type of judgements please..
Rajeswariii
(Querist) 09 February 2016
"Candidate getting relief from Court regarding non disclosure of pending criminal case at the time of appointment."
Please send judgements related to this article
