Month: April 2017

Service Matters

Reference of wrong provision of law— If an authority has a power under the law merely because while exercising that power the source of power is not specifically referred to or a reference is made to a wrong provision of law, that by itself does not vitiate the exercise of power so long as the power does exist and can be traced to a source available in law.

  2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 2289 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.P. Naolekar Civil Appeal No. 2951 of…

Service Matters

Court has construed the provisions of Section 7 of the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 and has laid down that under the said section in the matter of pay scales and dearness allowance parity has been granted to teachers working in the privately managed schools with the teachers working in the government schools and that other conditions of services relating to the teachers working in the government schools were not extended to teachers employed in privately managed schools.

  (1998) 9 JT 460 : (1997) 11 SCC 202 : (1998) SCC(L&S) 113 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SATISH KUMAR DUGGAL AND…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.