https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278060 Rule 32 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 was treated as a valid administrative framework rather than an impermissible sub-delegation of the Central Government's rule-making power under Section 21, because the Inspector-General's role was read as administrative and subject to Central Government approval. Regulation 14 of the Railway Protection Force Regulations, 1966 was held not to be invalid for failure to be laid before Parliament, since the laying clause was construed as directory under a negative procedure. The regulation was also treated as within the scope of Rule 32, and transfers affecting seniority or promotion prospects did not by themselves invalidate a transfer made under the governing Act and rules. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Jan 2019 11:29:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278060 Rule 32 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1959 was treated as a valid administrative framework rather than an impermissible sub-delegation of the Central Government's rule-making power under Section 21, because the Inspector-General's role was read as administrative and subject to Central Government approval. Regulation 14 of the Railway Protection Force Regulations, 1966 was held not to be invalid for failure to be laid before Parliament, since the laying clause was construed as directory under a negative procedure. The regulation was also treated as within the scope of Rule 32, and transfers affecting seniority or promotion prospects did not by themselves invalidate a transfer made under the governing Act and rules. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 04 Dec 1973 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278060