<?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>1999 (7) TMI 702 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286815</link>
    <description>Statutory service rules governed teacher appointments and pay in recognised private schools, so the Government could not downgrade sanctioned Secondary Grade Teacher posts or create a new junior cadre by executive order alone; the administrative orders were ultra vires. A pay distinction between teachers with the same qualifications and duties violated equal pay for equal work and Articles 14, 16 and 39(d), so the consolidated pay structure was unconstitutional and parity was required from the dates of appointment. Employment agreements imposed on the teachers were held unenforceable because they were unconscionable and did not bar challenge to the invalid orders.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2020 16:11:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=607015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (7) TMI 702 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286815</link>
      <description>Statutory service rules governed teacher appointments and pay in recognised private schools, so the Government could not downgrade sanctioned Secondary Grade Teacher posts or create a new junior cadre by executive order alone; the administrative orders were ultra vires. A pay distinction between teachers with the same qualifications and duties violated equal pay for equal work and Articles 14, 16 and 39(d), so the consolidated pay structure was unconstitutional and parity was required from the dates of appointment. Employment agreements imposed on the teachers were held unenforceable because they were unconscionable and did not bar challenge to the invalid orders.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286815</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>