<?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 (8) TMI 1581 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462385</link>
    <description>A later clarificatory or remedial amendment can apply retrospectively to pending matters where it expressly extends a benefit to an earlier class of persons. Here, the Court held that the 2016 and 2018 UGC amendments extended NET exemption to candidates who had registered for Ph.D. before 11.07.2009, subject to the stated conditions, and were intended to protect pre-2009 degree holders. It further treated the University&#039;s later statutory adoption as irrelevant to the applicable regulatory position because the selection occurred when the governing regime was already in force. On that basis, the candidate&#039;s appointment as Lecturer was upheld and the eligibility challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 19:00:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=830017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 1581 - Supreme Court (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462385</link>
      <description>A later clarificatory or remedial amendment can apply retrospectively to pending matters where it expressly extends a benefit to an earlier class of persons. Here, the Court held that the 2016 and 2018 UGC amendments extended NET exemption to candidates who had registered for Ph.D. before 11.07.2009, subject to the stated conditions, and were intended to protect pre-2009 degree holders. It further treated the University&#039;s later statutory adoption as irrelevant to the applicable regulatory position because the selection occurred when the governing regime was already in force. On that basis, the candidate&#039;s appointment as Lecturer was upheld and the eligibility challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462385</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>