TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Promotion qualifications date clarified by Supreme Court. Appellant's appointment upheld.</h1> The Supreme Court clarified that the relevant date for possessing prescribed qualifications for promotion is the date when the vacancy occurred, not the ... - Issues involved: Interpretation of Note 2 appended to Rule 43 in Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 regarding the relevant date for possessing prescribed qualification for promotion.Summary:The Supreme Court considered a case involving the interpretation of Note 2 appended to Rule 43 in Chapter XIV A of Kerala Education Rules, 1959. The question was whether the relevant date for possessing prescribed qualifications for promotion should be at the time of occurrence of vacancy or at the time of appointment. The case revolved around a vacancy for the post of High School Assistant (Hindi) that arose on 1.7.2003 in a school. The appellant applied for the post and was appointed on 11.9.2003, but faced challenges from another candidate, respondent No.1, who was not qualified at the time of the vacancy. The District Education Officer and State Government rejected respondent No.1's claims, leading to a series of legal challenges culminating in a writ appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.The Division Bench of the High Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and directed the appointment of respondent No.1 as High School Assistant (Hindi) from 16.9.2003. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this decision, emphasizing that the relevant date for possessing prescribed qualifications is the date when the vacancy occurred, i.e., 1.7.2003. The Court highlighted that subsequent events, such as the appellant's actual joining date, should not alter this interpretation. By applying a literal meaning to Note 2, the Court concluded that the order of the Division Bench was incorrect and restored the decision of the learned Single Judge, thereby dismissing respondent No.1's writ petition.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, with each party bearing their respective costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
