<?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>2010 (5) TMI 798 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172330</link>
    <description>A writ of mandamus may issue to enforce a clear entitlement or legitimate expectation arising from prior governmental action, and a later policy change does not defeat relief where the matter falls outside the ordinary policy regime and the applicant is otherwise constitutionally protected. The Court found that the minority educational institution&#039;s request for Higher Secondary course sanction was supported by earlier State decisions and could not be defeated by a subsequent policy revision or by the High Court&#039;s restrictive view of writ jurisdiction. Relief was therefore directed, subject to compliance with the statutory procedure for appointing teachers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Oct 2015 08:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=393885" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 798 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172330</link>
      <description>A writ of mandamus may issue to enforce a clear entitlement or legitimate expectation arising from prior governmental action, and a later policy change does not defeat relief where the matter falls outside the ordinary policy regime and the applicant is otherwise constitutionally protected. The Court found that the minority educational institution&#039;s request for Higher Secondary course sanction was supported by earlier State decisions and could not be defeated by a subsequent policy revision or by the High Court&#039;s restrictive view of writ jurisdiction. Relief was therefore directed, subject to compliance with the statutory procedure for appointing teachers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172330</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>