<?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>1992 (7) TMI 340 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194288</link>
    <description>Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules gives an approved teacher a preferential right to appointment, and Note 2 lays down the exclusive procedure by which that right can be lost. That procedure requires notice by registered post, time to join duty, a further warning notice, and forfeiture only if the teacher still does not exercise the right within the prescribed period. Because a rule that prescribes a specific manner for forfeiture must be followed in that manner alone, a voluntary relinquishment letter cannot by itself extinguish the preferential right. The forfeiture of the right is therefore effective only if it complies strictly with Note 2.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Sep 2017 15:14:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=488029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (7) TMI 340 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194288</link>
      <description>Rule 51A of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules gives an approved teacher a preferential right to appointment, and Note 2 lays down the exclusive procedure by which that right can be lost. That procedure requires notice by registered post, time to join duty, a further warning notice, and forfeiture only if the teacher still does not exercise the right within the prescribed period. Because a rule that prescribes a specific manner for forfeiture must be followed in that manner alone, a voluntary relinquishment letter cannot by itself extinguish the preferential right. The forfeiture of the right is therefore effective only if it complies strictly with Note 2.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194288</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>