<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1996 (1) TMI 380 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156836</link>
    <description>Reservation in public employment was treated as part of the equality framework under Articles 16(1) and 16(4), and the special service rules were read as applying the reservation principle to appointments to the cadre, including appointments by transfer. Prior precedent recognised that &quot;appointment&quot; could extend to promotion, and after the constitutional amendment introducing Article 16(4A), reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was expressly affirmed where representation was inadequate. On that basis, the view that Rule 22 was confined to direct recruitment was inconsistent with the statutory scheme and constitutional position; the reservation rule could apply to promotions as well.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (1) TMI 380 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156836</link>
      <description>Reservation in public employment was treated as part of the equality framework under Articles 16(1) and 16(4), and the special service rules were read as applying the reservation principle to appointments to the cadre, including appointments by transfer. Prior precedent recognised that &quot;appointment&quot; could extend to promotion, and after the constitutional amendment introducing Article 16(4A), reservation in promotion for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes was expressly affirmed where representation was inadequate. On that basis, the view that Rule 22 was confined to direct recruitment was inconsistent with the statutory scheme and constitutional position; the reservation rule could apply to promotions as well.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156836</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>