TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the rules relating to recognition and aid framed under the Madras Elementary Education Act, 1920 were statutory rules enforceable by a teacher against the school management, and whether an order of reinstatement passed in appeal by the educational authorities could be enforced in civil proceedings against the management.
Analysis: After the repeal of the provisions in the Act dealing with recognition and grant-in-aid, the reissued Part II rules could not be treated as rules made under the Act for carrying out its purposes. The scheme of the Act showed that the remaining rule-making power did not confer statutory force on those rules in respect of the relations between a private school management and its teachers. The governing relationship remained one of master and servant under the contract of employment. The rules, at most, operated as administrative instructions regulating the conditions on which the Government would grant or withdraw recognition and aid, and any enforcement was a matter between the Government and the management, not a source of enforceable rights in favour of a third party teacher.
Conclusion: The rules were not statutory and the teacher could not enforce the appellate order of reinstatement against the school management; the suit was misconceived.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
