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 appointment of the Chief Executive Officer of the Wakf Board had to be made strictly from the panel of two names suggested by the Board under Section 23 of the Wakf Act, 1995, and whether consultation with the Board remained necessary after the 2013 amendment.
Analysis: Section 23, as amended, removed the requirement of consultation and instead confined the State Government's power to appoint a full-time Chief Executive Officer from a panel of two names suggested by the Board. The amended provision also contemplates that, where no Muslim officer of the prescribed rank is available, a Muslim officer of equivalent rank may be appointed on deputation. The expression connecting the two contingencies was held to be conjunctive. Rule 7, to the extent it continued to speak of consultation, was treated as subordinate to the amended statute and incapable of overriding it. Since the respondent's name was not one of the names suggested by the Board, the impugned appointment could not stand as a direct appointment under the statutory scheme.
Conclusion: The appointment had to be made only from the panel suggested by the Board, and consultation was no longer a statutory requirement after the amendment; the impugned appointment was therefore unsustainable to that extent.
Final Conclusion: The Board was directed to send two eligible names, and the State Government was directed to appoint one of them as Chief Executive Officer, while the existing arrangement was continued only till such appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an amended statute confines appointment to a panel suggested by the competent body, subordinate rules cannot expand that power, and the appointing authority must act within the limits of the statutory panel-based mechanism.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
