https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172460 The State could validly prescribe primary and middle school text books under its executive power before the 1973 Act, and publishers had no vested right to have their books accepted. The Board, however, lacked authority to prescribe language text books because the power to set courses of instruction did not by implication include power to select text books, so its notifications could not give those books statutory status. The higher secondary notification dated 24 May 1973 failed for want of mandatory prior consultation with the Board itself. Section 4 of the 1973 Act was upheld as a valid regulatory power aimed at uniformity and educational standards, and it did not infringe Articles 19(1)(g) or 14. en-us Mon, 18 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Aug 2017 10:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172460 The State could validly prescribe primary and middle school text books under its executive power before the 1973 Act, and publishers had no vested right to have their books accepted. The Board, however, lacked authority to prescribe language text books because the power to set courses of instruction did not by implication include power to select text books, so its notifications could not give those books statutory status. The higher secondary notification dated 24 May 1973 failed for want of mandatory prior consultation with the Board itself. Section 4 of the 1973 Act was upheld as a valid regulatory power aimed at uniformity and educational standards, and it did not infringe Articles 19(1)(g) or 14. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 18 Mar 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172460