<?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>1994 (9) TMI 318 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157931</link>
    <description>After a dependent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on compassionate grounds following his father&#039;s death in harness, no further claim for consideration to a higher post survived on the same compassionate basis. The Court distinguished eligibility for a higher post from actual selection, and held that the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 did not permit renewed consideration once the compassionate appointment scheme had been exhausted by an accepted appointment. The direction to consider his candidature for Sub-Inspector was therefore not legally sustainable and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:28:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=308601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (9) TMI 318 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157931</link>
      <description>After a dependent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on compassionate grounds following his father&#039;s death in harness, no further claim for consideration to a higher post survived on the same compassionate basis. The Court distinguished eligibility for a higher post from actual selection, and held that the proviso to Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying while in Service) Rules, 1975 did not permit renewed consideration once the compassionate appointment scheme had been exhausted by an accepted appointment. The direction to consider his candidature for Sub-Inspector was therefore not legally sustainable and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157931</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>