https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175037 An amendment curtailing the Director's power under section 16-F(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 did not apply retrospectively to selection proceedings already commenced and pending when the amendment took effect, because the selection process was treated as an integrated proceeding and the statute showed no express or implied intention to disturb pending matters. The Director's appointment made in the pending proceeding was therefore valid. A candidate whose selection had earlier been disapproved by the Deputy Director was not disqualified from consideration under section 16-F(4), because the provision permitted appointment of any qualified applicant for the vacancy and earlier disapproval did not create a statutory bar. en-us Fri, 25 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2015 11:03:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175037 An amendment curtailing the Director's power under section 16-F(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 did not apply retrospectively to selection proceedings already commenced and pending when the amendment took effect, because the selection process was treated as an integrated proceeding and the statute showed no express or implied intention to disturb pending matters. The Director's appointment made in the pending proceeding was therefore valid. A candidate whose selection had earlier been disapproved by the Deputy Director was not disqualified from consideration under section 16-F(4), because the provision permitted appointment of any qualified applicant for the vacancy and earlier disapproval did not create a statutory bar. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Mar 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175037