<?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 (4) TMI 846 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246877</link>
    <description>A selection challenge to the post of Member (Technical), CESTAT failed because the notification did not show that any post was reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates, and a mere SC/ST column in the application form did not create reservation. The petitioner had participated in the selection process and interview without protest, so the settled rule against challenging a process after taking a chance and failing applied. The later amendment to Rule 21 did not help because no specific reservation order for these appointments was shown and the objection was raised too late. The challenge was therefore not maintainable and no relief was granted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=353871" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (4) TMI 846 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246877</link>
      <description>A selection challenge to the post of Member (Technical), CESTAT failed because the notification did not show that any post was reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidates, and a mere SC/ST column in the application form did not create reservation. The petitioner had participated in the selection process and interview without protest, so the settled rule against challenging a process after taking a chance and failing applied. The later amendment to Rule 21 did not help because no specific reservation order for these appointments was shown and the objection was raised too late. The challenge was therefore not maintainable and no relief was granted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Service Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246877</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>