SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(AP) 1151

M.NARAYANA REDDY, G.BIKSHAPATHY
M. Kesavulu – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. – Respondent


Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Under the said rules, part n was specifically framed in respect of the employees including the teachers in Panchayat Samithis and Zilla parishads and Part I specifically deals with the teachers and teaching staff working in Government schools. Therefore, when once the Government the already framed the rules for the teachers working in panchayat Raj Institutions, the question that arise for consideration is as to whether the Government can issue G. O. Ms. No. 538 by virtue of power conferred under sections 78 and 99 of A. P. Education Act and by virtue of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India in respect of the same service.

( 83 ) IN A. B. Krishna v. State of karnataka, AIR 1998 SC 1050, it was observed by the Supreme Court that: "9. It is no doubt true that the rule-making authority under Article 309 of the Constitution and Section 39 of the Act is the same, namely, the Government (to be precise, the Governor, under Article 309 and the Government under section 39), but the two jurisdictions are different. As has been seen above, power under Article 309 cannot be exercised by the Governor, if the Legislature has already made a law and the f



































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top