RAM PAL CHATURVEDI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
The appointments challenged were governed by the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 made under Article 309 of the Constitution, which, as amended by Rule 30(4) and its proviso, permitted the equivalence of service in specialty to teaching experience. Such statutory rules prevail over Universitiy ordinances unless an Act otherwise regulates the service; mala fides in the rule-making was not substantiated, and the University had not objected to the appointments.
- Parties
- Appellant: Ram Pal Chaturvedi; Respondents: State of Rajasthan & Ors.
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 24 September 1969
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeals / Supreme Court Appeal by Certificate From Rajasthan High Court Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed
- Legal Topics
- University Affiliation, Recruitment and Conditions of Service, Equivalence of Teaching Experience, Mala Fides in Rule Making
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ram Pal Chaturvedi
Appellant
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals / Supreme Court Appeal by Certificate From Rajasthan High Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Rule 30(4) of the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 prevails over Ordinance No. 65 regarding the teaching qualifications for appointment as Principal in Medical Colleges
- 2 Whether the retrospective addition of Rule 30(4) was mala fide
- 3 Whether the provisions in Ordinance No. 65 regarding teaching experience are mandatory
Ratio Decidendi
The appointments challenged were governed by the Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 made under Article 309 of the Constitution, which, as amended by Rule 30(4) and its proviso, permitted the equivalence of service in specialty to teaching experience. Such statutory rules prevail over Universitiy ordinances unless an Act otherwise regulates the service; mala fides in the rule-making was not substantiated, and the University had not objected to the appointments.
Court Disposition
Appeals dismissed
Orders
- One set of costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment