Supreme Court observations - The Legal Chamber

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that the statutory rules applicable at the time of an advertisement govern the selection process. The Supreme Court held that applying a different set of service rules, which were not referenced in the advertisement, to invalidate a duly made appointment to an aided educational institution is illegal. The Court emphasized that the legality of an appointment must be tested against the rules that initiated the selection. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a 2006 advertisement issued by an aided college to fill a Lecturer post in History, governed by the Assam Government Aided Junior College Management Rules, 2001, which prescribed no age limit. The appellant, Jyotsna Devi, was selected as the most meritorious candidate. Although she was overag...

The Supreme Court ruled that states have the legislative competence to levy entertainment tax on DTH services under Entry 62, List II (State List) of the Constitution, as the tax is on the "entertainment" aspect, not the broadcasting service. The Court upheld the "aspect doctrine", allowing simultaneous taxation by states (on entertainment) and the Centre (on broadcasting services under Entry 97, List I), provided the levies target distinct aspects of the same transaction. It rejected arguments of legislative overlap, emphasizing the pith and substance of state laws as valid exercises of taxing power. Facts Of The Case: The case involved multiple civil appeals and writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of state laws imposing entertainment tax on Direct-to-Home (DTH) broad...

Tag: Supreme Court observations

Wrong Rules, Right Candidate: Supreme Court Reinstates Teacher, Secures Job for Rival Too

Breaking Down the Supreme Court Judgment on DTH Services & Tax Dispute