<?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>2012 (9) TMI 1110 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195014</link>
    <description>Termination of a recognised private primary school teacher is invalid where the governing statute requires a show cause notice and prior written approval before dismissal, and both safeguards were not followed. The Court also reiterated that qualification norms for elementary education must be strictly enforced and that an appointment made in breach of prescribed eligibility requirements is ordinarily void. However, the employer could not rely on the alleged illegality of the original appointment to justify termination when it had acted discriminatorily and by victimising the teacher, because a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong or validate action by perpetuating illegality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jul 2023 14:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492211" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (9) TMI 1110 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195014</link>
      <description>Termination of a recognised private primary school teacher is invalid where the governing statute requires a show cause notice and prior written approval before dismissal, and both safeguards were not followed. The Court also reiterated that qualification norms for elementary education must be strictly enforced and that an appointment made in breach of prescribed eligibility requirements is ordinarily void. However, the employer could not rely on the alleged illegality of the original appointment to justify termination when it had acted discriminatorily and by victimising the teacher, because a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong or validate action by perpetuating illegality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195014</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>