Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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