Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme Court

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