<?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>2007 (7) TMI 657 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184039</link>
    <description>A statutory procedure governing opening or upgrading aided schools must be followed strictly, including publication of the final list and a Gazette notification inviting applications under Rule 2A. Applications made outside that procedure are not entitled to consideration. A plea of discrimination does not justify judicially compelled parity where the earlier upgrades themselves were granted in disregard of the rules, because Article 14 does not require repetition of an illegality. A writ court cannot direct the State to perpetuate an unlawful or irregular benefit, and the absence of compliance with the mandatory process defeats the claim for upgradation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Jun 2016 14:34:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (7) TMI 657 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184039</link>
      <description>A statutory procedure governing opening or upgrading aided schools must be followed strictly, including publication of the final list and a Gazette notification inviting applications under Rule 2A. Applications made outside that procedure are not entitled to consideration. A plea of discrimination does not justify judicially compelled parity where the earlier upgrades themselves were granted in disregard of the rules, because Article 14 does not require repetition of an illegality. A writ court cannot direct the State to perpetuate an unlawful or irregular benefit, and the absence of compliance with the mandatory process defeats the claim for upgradation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184039</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>