https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412385 Statutory tenure rules for the Director of Enforcement were read as fixing a minimum term of two years, not a maximum, because Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 overrides inconsistent service rules and is aimed at independence and continuity. On that basis, appointment beyond two years was held permissible. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was treated as supporting variation or extension of the appointment order where the statute does not prohibit it, so the tenure extension was upheld. The challenge based on malice in law also failed because the extension was recommended by the prescribed committee and supported by public interest. en-us Wed, 08 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Sep 2021 11:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412385 Statutory tenure rules for the Director of Enforcement were read as fixing a minimum term of two years, not a maximum, because Section 25 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 overrides inconsistent service rules and is aimed at independence and continuity. On that basis, appointment beyond two years was held permissible. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 was treated as supporting variation or extension of the appointment order where the statute does not prohibit it, so the tenure extension was upheld. The challenge based on malice in law also failed because the extension was recommended by the prescribed committee and supported by public interest. Case-Laws FEMA Wed, 08 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412385