Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High 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