Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)
Rizwana Khatoon @ Rizwana Khatun vs The State Of Bihar Through Its Secretary on 18 March, 2024 cites

Zile Singh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 7 October, 2004

29. We would only notice the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zile Singh v. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 1. The amendment which came up for interpretation therein, was to an exception from a disqualification. On April 5, 1994 an amendment was made to the Municipal Act in Haryana bringing in a disqualification for being elected or continued as a member of the Municipality, to persons having more than two children. An exemption was provided to those who had more than two living children "on or after the expiry of one year of the commencement of the Act". This brought in anomalous consequences verging on absurdity since a person who has a third child on commencement of the Act would be disqualified, but the disqualification would be removed on expiry of one year. That was not the intention and noticing the anomaly a substitution was made in October, changing the word "after" to "up to". Zile Singh, was a member who had a fourth child in August and was hence sought to be disqualified. It was argued that the amendment cannot be given retrospective effect and that the one-year period could only commence from the date of substitution. The Honourable Supreme Court found that the substitution was intended to remove the anomaly and by necessary implication it had Patna High Court L.P.A No.748 of 2022 dt.20-03-2024 436/446 retrospective effect from the date on which the disqualification was first brought into the statute book. It was held so in paragraph 22: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 2186 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

Devesh Sharma vs Union Of India on 11 August, 2023

33. The arguments addressed insofar as sufficient opportunity having not been given and the right to sit for supplementary examinations are all inconsequential, looking at the rigor of the statutory provision. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the statutory provision under Section 23 either Patna High Court L.P.A No.748 of 2022 dt.20-03-2024 439/446 as it was originally enacted or the second proviso, as introduced in 2017 with retrospective effect. The petitioners have not been able to raise any valid ground insofar as the illegality, arbitrariness, mischief or manifest wrong in the said provision. Section 23(2) provided a hiatus of 5 years maximum to bring in the rigor of the essential qualification and by the first proviso provided all who were in position as on the date of enforcement of the RTE Act; ie: 01.04.2010, to acquire the minimum qualification within 5 years. Then, by the introduction of the second proviso, all who were in position as on 31.03.2015 were enabled a further period of 4 years, to achieve the minimum bench mark standard of essential teachers training qualification; all in the name of providing quality elementary education, the significance of which was highlighted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, based on the provisions in the RTE act in Devesh Sharma v. Union of India 2023 SCC Online SC 985.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 25 - S Dhulia - Full Document
1