<?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>2014 (3) TMI 820 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245372</link>
    <description>Where recruitment regulations prescribe the eligibility criteria for selection to the Indian Administrative Service, the administration cannot add a further disqualifying condition based only on seniority or departmental hierarchy. Eligible officers who satisfy the prescribed merit, service, status and age requirements must be considered under the governing rules, and exclusion by an extra-statutory restriction creates unequal treatment among similarly situated candidates. The restriction of the zone of consideration was therefore unlawful, and exclusion on that basis was inconsistent with the guarantee of equality and equal opportunity in public employment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Mar 2014 09:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=349911" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (3) TMI 820 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245372</link>
      <description>Where recruitment regulations prescribe the eligibility criteria for selection to the Indian Administrative Service, the administration cannot add a further disqualifying condition based only on seniority or departmental hierarchy. Eligible officers who satisfy the prescribed merit, service, status and age requirements must be considered under the governing rules, and exclusion by an extra-statutory restriction creates unequal treatment among similarly situated candidates. The restriction of the zone of consideration was therefore unlawful, and exclusion on that basis was inconsistent with the guarantee of equality and equal opportunity in public employment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245372</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>