https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163011 Rule 5-C of the Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937, was examined against the Cantonments Act, 1924, and the Court reasoned that Cantonment Boards are separate autonomous statutory bodies with their own appointing authorities, so inter-board transfer would amount to termination from one Board and fresh appointment by another. Because the Act, as it then stood, did not authorise a rule on such transfers, the rule exceeded the delegated power and remained void ab initio. The later substitution of the enabling clause did not validate the defective rule, and the statutory effect given to rules could not cure a rule beyond the parent Act. Rule 5-C was therefore ultra vires and the transfer order invalid. en-us Thu, 25 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jul 2014 15:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163011 Rule 5-C of the Cantonment Funds Servants Rules, 1937, was examined against the Cantonments Act, 1924, and the Court reasoned that Cantonment Boards are separate autonomous statutory bodies with their own appointing authorities, so inter-board transfer would amount to termination from one Board and fresh appointment by another. Because the Act, as it then stood, did not authorise a rule on such transfers, the rule exceeded the delegated power and remained void ab initio. The later substitution of the enabling clause did not validate the defective rule, and the statutory effect given to rules could not cure a rule beyond the parent Act. Rule 5-C was therefore ultra vires and the transfer order invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=163011