<?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>2007 (4) TMI 764 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290752</link>
    <description>Rule 45 of the Kerala Education Rules requires a graduate teacher with B.Ed. or equivalent qualification and five years&#039; actual teaching experience after acquiring the degree for appointment as Headmaster. The period spent on study leave could not be counted as teaching experience because the rule demands real teaching service, not deemed service. A later administrative circular on leave benefits could not override the statutory eligibility requirement. The minority-institution argument was unavailable because the institution had not challenged the rule&#039;s applicability and the validity of Rule 45 was not under attack. On that basis, the appellant was not eligible for consideration as Headmaster.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2020 16:28:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=625115" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 764 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290752</link>
      <description>Rule 45 of the Kerala Education Rules requires a graduate teacher with B.Ed. or equivalent qualification and five years&#039; actual teaching experience after acquiring the degree for appointment as Headmaster. The period spent on study leave could not be counted as teaching experience because the rule demands real teaching service, not deemed service. A later administrative circular on leave benefits could not override the statutory eligibility requirement. The minority-institution argument was unavailable because the institution had not challenged the rule&#039;s applicability and the validity of Rule 45 was not under attack. On that basis, the appellant was not eligible for consideration as Headmaster.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=290752</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>