https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290545 A modification reducing the departmental examination pass mark from 60% to 50% was held to operate prospectively from 26.05.2008 and could not be applied retrospectively to revive an earlier promotion claim. Retrospective application was rejected because the earlier results had been declared, promotions had been effected under the unamended rules, and reopening the matter would unsettle accrued rights and settled third-party promotions. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14 and 16(1) also failed, as a prospective commencement date was not treated as hostile discrimination. The attempt to reopen the promotion dispute was further barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata, and delay and laches. en-us Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 04 Oct 2020 20:10:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290545 A modification reducing the departmental examination pass mark from 60% to 50% was held to operate prospectively from 26.05.2008 and could not be applied retrospectively to revive an earlier promotion claim. Retrospective application was rejected because the earlier results had been declared, promotions had been effected under the unamended rules, and reopening the matter would unsettle accrued rights and settled third-party promotions. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14 and 16(1) also failed, as a prospective commencement date was not treated as hostile discrimination. The attempt to reopen the promotion dispute was further barred by res judicata, constructive res judicata, and delay and laches. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290545