<?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 (2) TMI 533 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168206</link>
    <description>Appointments made according to the Recruitment Rules count for seniority from the date of such appointment, while ad hoc or stop-gap appointments made dehors the rules do not confer seniority. On that principle, direct recruits were entitled to rank above ad hoc promotees appointed without compliance with the prescribed procedure and without Public Service Commission approval. A challenge to the basis of a seniority list was not defeated by non-joinder of every affected promotee, because the State was the necessary party and some promotees had been impleaded. A challenge filed soon after issuance of the final seniority list was not barred by delay and laches; the seniority list was therefore to be redrawn in accordance with the rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2015 13:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375114" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 533 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168206</link>
      <description>Appointments made according to the Recruitment Rules count for seniority from the date of such appointment, while ad hoc or stop-gap appointments made dehors the rules do not confer seniority. On that principle, direct recruits were entitled to rank above ad hoc promotees appointed without compliance with the prescribed procedure and without Public Service Commission approval. A challenge to the basis of a seniority list was not defeated by non-joinder of every affected promotee, because the State was the necessary party and some promotees had been impleaded. A challenge filed soon after issuance of the final seniority list was not barred by delay and laches; the seniority list was therefore to be redrawn in accordance with the rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>