Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.56 seconds)
Kusum Nehra (Dr.) vs Dr. B.R. Ambedkar College (Through Its ... on 8 August, 2008 cites

N.T. Bevin Kath Etc vs Karnataka Public Service Commission ... on 30 March, 1990

8. Mr.Khanna further submitted that although the Appellant was working in another college at present she had not given up her claim to the post of Lecturer (Hindi) in the Respondent No.1 College. The learned Single Judge having arrived at a factual finding that the Respondent No.5 did not possess LPA No. 389/2006 Page 5 of 15 the NET qualification as on 15th July 2001 and had not submitted the Ph.D. thesis on or before 31st December 1993, there was no alternative but quash the illegal appointment of Respondent No.5. Mr. Khanna submitted that the notification dated 31st July 2002 issued by the UGC was prospective. He relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commissioner (1990) 3 SCC 157, P.Mahendran v. State of Karnataka 1990 (1) SCC 411, Gopal Krishna Rath v. M.A.A. Baig (dead) by LRs 1999 (1) SCC 544 and Secretary, A.P. Service Commision v. B.Swapana (2005) 4 SCC 154 to contend that the eligibility criteria could not be changed retrospectively and after the last date for the submission of applications.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 313 - K N Singh - Full Document

P. Mahendran vs State Of Karnataka on 5 December, 1989

That is because every statute or statutory rule is prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective effect. Unless there are words in the Statute or in the Rules showing the intention to affect existing rights the rule must be held to be prospective. If the Rule is expressed in a language which is fairly capable of either interpretation it ought to be considered as prospective only. (See P.Mahendran and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 462 - K N Singh - Full Document
1