High Court Karnataka High Court

M/S Hindustan Petroleum … vs V N Srinivasa Reddy on 25 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
M/S Hindustan Petroleum … vs V N Srinivasa Reddy on 25 September, 2008
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & Shantanagoudar
IN TEE HIGR COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

BATED was THE 25113 DAY or sEPTEMn_12=$ié' 25:';-i§ .91%::__j'.  _

Pnmsamf  »

TI-IE HGWBLE mm. 9.13. Dxxaxéamx, ;f:zi:,E:.'§~..'JU;si*:*;mE.

my
'THE Howam MRJUSTECE aéeéigs 3Iim'~I?:A§z.§§}oUBAR
Writ Agga}  {L-»TEf-?.1 

BfE'.iW't3'.€iZ§:

M} S E§i:1c1'ziSia;:4--V}'*:3i:t'<:3}ci_1;;m {Z'0r;§0ra_§iDE1:. L3;-:1.W
Haxzing its Regi.s't::5&»ri V'f3ifi4ic:ret"zi1:  .
Jamzahsziji fIf§1ta"~§€:§:zé_,,Ev1u"::ib%ai----'~49$ mag
Ané. its R{;égiT1"1c*i3. {'VJflT1cé=§'IéiI }'4f(>f?'?, {§Io:i"'Ma.dmS Road
Seeravafiinagar PGist»,»._ _§§fi:is}.méa1:aja;%':2ram

Bangalore} 5&3 'z'::16."~  * - .. Appeilaxzt

{B35 Sri  ':§;E§i£>éafie'1?;§r Sii Artavimfi C'De@, Aévmcate}

         

 v.':\;1;sriz1iv9;sa"';2*.eddy

 S;'{.6{3? Masjié Road

KR. Puram, Ba.z1galm:e ~-- E-36$ U36

 



. R.Murthy

S/0 Ramaiah, aged about 38 years

R] 0 Mahadevapura

Doomvaninagar Post   _
Bangalore W560 048 v

, V.N.M11n;irt:ddy  

S/0 Vcnkateswappa, aged aboui'_Vyears'v. 2
R/0 Door No. 49, B.Na:e~ayanapura~-.?  " '
Bangalore - 560 016 

. M. Lurduswamy

. R'. Chand Pasha  'll '

. P.Rajendra11  VV   V.
VS/0 Pc;1'§yassv,amy,"agc:d ahotlt 34 years
 i%.,1_o NQ_.'7, ;S,haktinagaxj""£5ehind Til". Ltd.
301d i'aIa£3'L:as  .Roak:1--, Dooravaninagar

V.' K.Ba331  ~ A
 ' Sjo Kfippasfiéazray, ageci abmzt 35 years
_  ' Rgo No.53, Vsnhataraxnanappa Lane

' " * a B5 Ylaxayanapura, Whitelfieid Road
'mangazore --- 560 016

'  '¥'Vs~Ia.g%adecsan
 0 late Ponnuxangam, aged about 44 years
 /0 floor No.37", Keshavanagar

S/0 V.'I'.Mic]:1ael

R/0 No.64, Motappanapaljga  "
Inziranagar, Bangaigre: _-- 5:30 

S/or Syed Rahim,  aBo11_f"3'_2  
R/0 No.238,...I)ai'gah'?!{0haJ.1a;--._ ' 
}Z}oorav311_inagar,= Vfianapugra' _ _ --

Old Madras Road '   "   
Bangaicre 4560 015 "  "

Bangfiarc A 

Magacii Road

 

=:.= ,A.. ,«-»



Bangalore ---- 560 023 ..   _

(By Sri Narayanaswamy, Advocate for M/s M a§::d*« V. 

Associates, Advocates)

This writ appeal is filed ujs 4 of   
Act praying to set aside the order»passed*--iAn 'the \v§:*i':pcfitioj;1 No, 

34818 of 2004 dt. 25.10.2007 and 

This writ appea} coming up  this 'z¥a1y,_fi§:11e Coult
delivered the fo11owi:ng:--  r  '  

(De;iv¢§e;1_ bgif'.{§;£}ina1€é§i%;1nv,'__§§.'Jt)
The    Ckivcmgzsent of India

LIndc:I'tak?i.I3g._.--   H

2. Accfizdmg  "conrlsel for the appellant, flit?
appeHant«compan§" 1j.§Vad- .vad\}E:rf:i'$ed for crerfain vacancies in the
c,efi:ég:)Iy  general wfififfiiévn at Bangalore, L.P.G.Plaz1t. The

rcsggV)€v§1(i:zi1F1i$_  the 24 candidates selected and appoizlteei

 V'   / undertaking from them.

  : As  the <:0:rpoIat:ion's poiicy the informafion prcxiuced

   PE.'$'pOI1(il:'.11tS was reviewed and the documents were

 to the doncemed school/colleges for veriftcation

  proof of age, quaiizficattéon etc. The school aufhoréties

,.------~--;Z:::

-'=_i"\,j

:7'



 .  directign"  ;~;g~.;;§J1

have confirmed in Writing that the irxfoxmation [)I'(}'§{..1'.€}.{'"l'f'tT},.: 

resp0nc¥.en't.s was either false or the d0(:11mentS-._V:h3§'ev?' }..$ee::1_' 

fab1"ieai:ed. in certain cases, the sch:-;)<5iVs"'ci<:; "I'ZOt:'  tifie

address given. by {he respondents.  

issued Show cause notice to the ItSpQ’f’1{?iCHTS”aI1d Iespehdents V

have admitteti their mistake in fhe {he shefiké xrauee notices
and prayed fear condoning I the appellant
impiemenfing the coglgiitjpn ,1 terminated
the services csf the V ”

2.3 tefifiieation, the respondents
raised an h the fnclusfriai Tribunal in
C3.R.No.5’7/ 1’997V *a.1fi.d” Al::;;1V12’et1″ial Tribxlnai by award dated
hi;ei;::s.–4:.t–aTemeI1t of the Iesponclents whose
seA1:Vi:Eee3;i%G’eréA as back as on 25.05.1992 with a further

Vgzer cent. of baekwages from the date of

‘£’_f.1:3I’33’;1i”.f3¢f-11f_’i03u1″ the eiate of reixlstatement with c:c>ntim1it:y of sezviee.

4: by {fie saié award the a;3pe]la31t approached this Court

No. 34818 of 20()4 and the learned Single Judge of

£hi$¥ ‘{i<mrt after hearing both sides dismissed the writ petitien.

2'

mg;

the said principle to the Case (31; hand is nm:~exisi4¢z1€§_;’-.4’_r3.%{e are
supported by {ha fiecisign 3f the figpéx {hurt Qf

GAYATHR1 DEVI vs. SHAHIPAL SiNGH repm:::3..

3% :3

527′ Whemin it :5 held that as a genefigl p;I343§Q3i:t_iQ£[§,A”thé’ §3fifi:V>i(3.Ss§fi0:1″”.,

that fraud i_iI}I’8fiJC}S 693:}-‘fh1?11g is: right, {*:»31 t’ ‘i1e{i’j€ :’§s:&I}:i;§?

ha firlsiafieé and proved. ‘V V V. V H V
5.2 £11 the facts and “£}:1¢ szrasi.-:cA§, %?f3 find in Ehe

absfinee of a Ifigular snqz1i;:f§%v:”;%:;fi%;_ig {mier passed by

the managemcma ‘€j:>313§i1:>t”._be€ s’ij.si*é:1i:jit:<;;i'wi§Iid the 3531:1651 Singie

Juiige W357? i*ig;t:tt. €;{i?g1S}1§;:;gV."':}1€ ' Hifi§1};gE1€{§ ardfir. We find :10
masen to éifiei with, ti3.é"L«vViT€;ni 'éfftgze ieaxnmi Smgic Judgre, T336 xmzit.
agapeal aisc: agmi is dismiz'-ssed. ',3

Sd/-

Chief Justice
Sd/-f’
Judge

/…

A’»».E:.1<?i5x: Y 5:-2; Kfo.