MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Retrospective Application of Statutory Rules Permissible, No Vested Rights in Exemptions for Teachers Over 50: Kerala HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in A. Narayanan vs. Vijayalakshmi P. and Others, comprising Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar, P.G. Ajithkumar, and C.S. Sudha, upheld the retrospectivity of the third proviso to Rule 44A(1) of the Kerala Education Rules, 1959. The decision, dated February 16, 2024, focused on the qualifications required for the appointment of Headmasters in Aided High Schools, especially the exemption from test qualifications for teachers who have attained the age of 50 years.

Legal Point of the Judgment: The Court examined the constitutional validity and retrospective implementation of the third proviso to Rule 44A(1), which concerns the exemption from test qualifications for teachers over the age of 50.

The appeal challenged the headmaster appointments in Aided High Schools under Rule 44A(1), particularly scrutinizing the rule's third proviso and its retrospective effect from June 1, 2015. The core issue was whether this retrospective provision infringed upon the constitutional rights of the concerned teachers.

The Court, in its detailed analysis, affirmed that "a legislative power to make law with retrospective effect is well recognized." Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar emphasized, "Retrospective curative legislation is permissible, and the retrospectivity of the third proviso does not violate constitutional rights."

Addressing the interface between executive orders and statutory provisions, the Court observed that an executive order cannot override a statutory provision. The ruling noted, "The decision in Sadanandan is in order as a statutory provision cannot be overridden by an executive order."

Upholding the validity of the third proviso to Rule 44A(1), the Court overruled the decision in Harifa Beevi Kallan, stating that the right to exemption from test qualifications is not a vested right that cannot be taken away retrospectively. The Court ordered the implementation of the third proviso with retrospective effect, ensuring compliance with the qualifications for the appointment of Headmasters in Aided Schools.

Date of Decision: 16th February 2024

Narayanan VS Vijayalakshmi P. and Others

Latest Legal News