Cwt Vs. Santosh Chand

counsels: j.k. singhi, for the applicant in the high court of rajasthan, jaipur bench s.k. keshote & f.c. bansal, jj. - labour & servicesappointment: [shiv kumar sharma, ashok parihar & k.s. rathore, jj] merit list rajasthan secondary education act (42 of 1957), section 28 & rajasthan board of secondary education rules, rule 20 - held, improved marks obtained by candidate after re-appearing in examination can be considered for drawing the merit list of candidate for appointment to post of teacher. circular issued by the director of primary & secondary education ousting such candidate from consideration in merit list is illegal and without jurisdiction. - 96 (jp)/1986, assessment year 1975-76. 3. the learned counsel for the revenue advanced manifold contentions but we are satisfied that the rule 1bb is procedural and, therefore, it has a retrospective effect.s.k. keshote, j.on the application of the revenue filed under section 27(3) of the wealth tax act, 1957 the income tax appellate tribunal, jaipur bench, jaipur has referred the following question for our opinion :'whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the appellate assistant commissioner that in the case of residential properties rule 1bb being procedural, would apply to assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78, even prior to 1-4-1979?'2. the matter arises out of the wealth tax appeal no. 96 (jp)/1986, assessment year 1975-76.3. the learned counsel for the revenue advanced manifold contentions but we are satisfied that the rule 1bb is procedural and, therefore, it has a retrospective effect. looking to this nature of the provision being a procedure and would equally apply to all pending assessment and the learned tribunal is thus not incorrect in its approach.4. in the case of cwt v. sharvan kumar swarup & sons : 1995ecr425(sc) , their lordships of the honble supreme court held this rule a procedural and having retrospective effect. we do not find any infirmity in the view taken by the tribunal.5. as a result of the aforesaid discussion we answer the question referred by the learned tribunal for our opinion in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. this reference accordingly stands disposed of.