Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.54 seconds)Union Of India (Uoi) Represented By The ... vs Central Administrative Tribunal, ... on 30 June, 2005
In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to the judgment of this Court reported in 2009 Writ L.R.82 in the case of UNION OF INDIA ..vs.. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI AND OTHERS, wherein it has been held as follows:
Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980
In the other judgment reported in (1981)4 SCC 93 (ACCOUNTANT GENERAL ..vs.. S.DORAISWAMY), it has been held as follows:
S.Mohamood Basha vs The Director Of Collegiate Education on 12 July, 2002
(d) G.O.Ms.No.2766 dated 31.12.1982 was quashed by this Court in W.P.No.14658 of 1995 on 12.7.2002 on the ground that the Government has no power to prescribe qualifications for the teaching staff employed in the Private Colleges and that Rule 12A of the Tamil Nadu State and Subordinate Service Rules, which prescribes passing of Tamil language test as mandatory for all Government Servants, cannot be made applicable to the teaching staff of Private Colleges since it has no statutory basis. The said order is reported in 2002 (3) CTC 336 (S.Mohamood Basha v. The Director of Collegiate Education, Madras).
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 148 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
C. Stephenson Roobasingh, Manager And ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu Represented By ... on 22 March, 1993
"12. It is settled proposition that as far as service conditions are concerned, when once appointment has been made in a perfectly lawful manner and the appointee was fully qualified in terms of the qualifications as prescribed at the time of such appointment, there cannot be a subsequent revision of the qualifications so as to be applied retrospectively and affect the career of such appointees. It is not disputed that the Government Orders, by itself, do not specifically envisage any retrospective application. It is also settled proposition that rules framed by the Government cannot have retrospective effect unless specifically provided for under the Act and Rules. Though the learned counsel for the third respondent sought to rely on the observations in paragraph 69 of the judgment in C.STEPHENSON ROOBASINGH ..vs.. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & OTHERS (1993 Writ Law Reporter 544) extracted above and contended that the observations clearly bring forth that the Government Order will govern all the pending applications for recognition and the institutions which did not have permanent recognition, the said contention was, however, rightly disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner who has brought to the notice of this Court that the third respondent institution had permanent recognition. But it is only subsequently due to certain other reasons, the recognition had been withdrawn and temporary recognition was being granted periodically. A perusal of the proceedings of the Joint Director dated 09.12.1991 which deals with several Teacher Training Institutes, inclusive of the third respondent Institute, shows that it has been specifically referred to as enjoying permanent recognition. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the third respondent that the petitioner Institution would be governed by the observations contained in the judgment of the Division Bench, cannot be accepted. I am inclined to hold that the Government Orders revising the qualifications and various other norms can have only prospective application, namely, institutions applying newly for recognition and institutions, which, as on the date of the order, did not have permanent recognition. The petitioner institution having been a permanent institution, cannot fall under anyone of the said two categories and hence, as far as the third respondent Institution is concerned, the impugned Government Order enhancing the educational qualifications cannot be retrospectively applied. The fact that either the Government or the third respondent Institution had wrongly understood the provisions, cannot result in snatching away the rights of the petitioner. The legal consequences of any Government Order or statutory provisions has to naturally follow and be implemented and it does not depend on how one of the parties had understood the scope of the order. Even assuming that the government was not granting permanent recognition only due to the said fact, it does not follow that the petitioner should be non-suited. The claims of the petitioner, namely, that the Government Orders cannot be given retrospective operation, is well founded and the order of termination cannot be sustained".
1