https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169252 Section 4 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act was upheld because the date-based classification had a rational basis and the provision was read down to confine the Chancellor's scrutiny to compliance with the Act and University rules, while requiring the Commission to hear the teacher concerned; it was therefore not discriminatory under Article 14. The later Chancellor's order, issued after notice and hearing, was treated as a fresh order rather than an unauthorised review and was not vitiated by breach of natural justice. Rule 1(6) of the University Statutes was construed as a protective deeming provision for teachers confirmed before 1 July 1952, so the teacher was treated as possessing the minimum qualification for appointment as Principal and the termination-linked directive was invalid. en-us Thu, 17 Aug 1967 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Apr 2015 17:27:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169252 Section 4 of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act was upheld because the date-based classification had a rational basis and the provision was read down to confine the Chancellor's scrutiny to compliance with the Act and University rules, while requiring the Commission to hear the teacher concerned; it was therefore not discriminatory under Article 14. The later Chancellor's order, issued after notice and hearing, was treated as a fresh order rather than an unauthorised review and was not vitiated by breach of natural justice. Rule 1(6) of the University Statutes was construed as a protective deeming provision for teachers confirmed before 1 July 1952, so the teacher was treated as possessing the minimum qualification for appointment as Principal and the termination-linked directive was invalid. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Aug 1967 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169252