RAM PAL CHATURVEDI versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

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.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Pal Chaturvedi

Appellant

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / Supreme Court Appeal by Certificate From Rajasthan High Court Judgment

  1. 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. 2 Whether the retrospective addition of Rule 30(4) was mala fide
  3. 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.