<?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>1987 (5) TMI 376 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272633</link>
    <description>Section 8 of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976 is only a removal-of-difficulty provision and cannot be used as a substitute for the express rule-making power under Section 7 or as a basis for binding subordinate legislation. Notifications purporting to derive authority from Section 8 were inconsistent, confusing, and beyond its limited scope, so they were invalid. After those notifications were struck down, the suspension order was tested against the remaining administrative instructions, which required the District Superintendent of Education to act after obtaining orders from the Chairman of the Committee. Suspension as an interim disciplinary measure was within settled authority, and the order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 May 2018 11:33:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=519846" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (5) TMI 376 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272633</link>
      <description>Section 8 of the Bihar Non-Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over of Control) Act, 1976 is only a removal-of-difficulty provision and cannot be used as a substitute for the express rule-making power under Section 7 or as a basis for binding subordinate legislation. Notifications purporting to derive authority from Section 8 were inconsistent, confusing, and beyond its limited scope, so they were invalid. After those notifications were struck down, the suspension order was tested against the remaining administrative instructions, which required the District Superintendent of Education to act after obtaining orders from the Chairman of the Committee. Suspension as an interim disciplinary measure was within settled authority, and the order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272633</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>