<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1963 (8) TMI 47 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172205</link>
    <description>A writ of quo warranto can issue only where a public office is held without legal authority, and in challenges to academic appointments the Court gives due weight to the assessment of a board of experts. It should not substitute its own view on equivalence or merit unless there is a clear breach of a statutory or binding rule. On the record, the appointment to Reader in English was made on the recommendation of the Board of Appointments, which could treat the appointee&#039;s Durham University degree as equivalent to the prescribed qualification. The High Court was found to have applied scrutiny more akin to certiorari than quo warranto, and the appointment challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2015 11:43:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1963 (8) TMI 47 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172205</link>
      <description>A writ of quo warranto can issue only where a public office is held without legal authority, and in challenges to academic appointments the Court gives due weight to the assessment of a board of experts. It should not substitute its own view on equivalence or merit unless there is a clear breach of a statutory or binding rule. On the record, the appointment to Reader in English was made on the recommendation of the Board of Appointments, which could treat the appointee&#039;s Durham University degree as equivalent to the prescribed qualification. The High Court was found to have applied scrutiny more akin to certiorari than quo warranto, and the appointment challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 1963 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>