Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-10-1997
Reported in : AIR1997SC1711; JT1997(1)SC546; (1997)2SCC745; 1SCR138
..... reconstitution of the board and have vested that power in the state government. the state legislature having been aware of that existing law and practice in that behalf, chose to enact the act empowering the governor to act under the act. the general clauses act, though would apply in interpretation of the constitution, does not ..... 7 prescribes term of office of the members for a period of three years from the date of nomination made under section 5. disqualifications for membership of the board are enumerated in section 8 which envisages that a person shall be disqualified for being nominated as a member ..... and reasons therefore. it is only an exercise of the control envisaged by the amendment of section 16d (3) of the act with a view to prevent appointment of unqualified persons. the power under section 16d(4) entrusted to the authorised controller was merely of management. management of ..... held that the word 'compensation' must mean a full and fair money equivalent. the same ratio was followed in state of bihar v. kameshwar singh : 1scr1020 . the constitution (5th amendment) act was made in 1955 amending article 31(2) and also introducing articled 1(2a). it would, therefore, be ..... in hardwarilal's case (supra), a full bench of the punjab and haryana high court was to consider whether the governor in his capacity as the chancellor of maharshi dayanand was to act under maharshi dayanand university act, 1975 (haryana act no. 25 of 1975) in his official capacity as chancellor .....Tag this Judgment!