<?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>2022 (3) TMI 1608 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457154</link>
    <description>A writ of quo warranto lies against a public office appointment made in breach of binding statutory regulations. The post of Vice-Chancellor is a public office, and the UGC regulations, having statutory force, governed eligibility and the constitution of the Search Committee where the State university had adopted the Central pay scheme and received Central assistance. Those regulations required at least ten years&#039; teaching experience as Professor and a Search Committee including a nominee of the UGC Chairman. Because the appointment was made without compliance with those requirements, and the State statute did not displace the Central regulatory framework, the appointment was void and liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Sep 2024 16:58:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=767132" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (3) TMI 1608 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457154</link>
      <description>A writ of quo warranto lies against a public office appointment made in breach of binding statutory regulations. The post of Vice-Chancellor is a public office, and the UGC regulations, having statutory force, governed eligibility and the constitution of the Search Committee where the State university had adopted the Central pay scheme and received Central assistance. Those regulations required at least ten years&#039; teaching experience as Professor and a Search Committee including a nominee of the UGC Chairman. Because the appointment was made without compliance with those requirements, and the State statute did not displace the Central regulatory framework, the appointment was void and liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457154</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>