https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175046 Article 148(5) was treated as conferring only prospective rule-making power, so the 1974 Rules could not validly be given retrospective effect through a deeming clause. Paragraph 143 of the Manual of Standing Orders remained an administrative instruction and did not acquire statutory force under the relevant preserved-service provisions, so it could be amended by correction slip. Rule 7(2), which linked seniority to appointments under Rule 6, was not struck down for excessive delegation because the power was vested in a high constitutional authority and was neither arbitrary nor unguided. The retrospective component failed, while the challenge to Rule 7(2) did not. en-us Thu, 13 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Nov 2015 12:21:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175046 Article 148(5) was treated as conferring only prospective rule-making power, so the 1974 Rules could not validly be given retrospective effect through a deeming clause. Paragraph 143 of the Manual of Standing Orders remained an administrative instruction and did not acquire statutory force under the relevant preserved-service provisions, so it could be amended by correction slip. Rule 7(2), which linked seniority to appointments under Rule 6, was not struck down for excessive delegation because the power was vested in a high constitutional authority and was neither arbitrary nor unguided. The retrospective component failed, while the challenge to Rule 7(2) did not. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Nov 1980 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175046