<?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>1985 (3) TMI 298 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168859</link>
    <description>A statutory cut-off date for absorbing temporary lecturers was upheld because it had a rational nexus with the object of regularising lecturers of long standing and did not create an arbitrary classification under Articles 14 and 16. Section 3 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Act, 1979 was construed to require substantive continuous service from a date prior to 25 June 1975 up to commencement of the Ordinance, while allowing functional gaps to be ignored where continuity in substance existed. The legislation was therefore not struck down as discriminatory or arbitrary, and the challenge to the absorption scheme failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=380203" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (3) TMI 298 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168859</link>
      <description>A statutory cut-off date for absorbing temporary lecturers was upheld because it had a rational nexus with the object of regularising lecturers of long standing and did not create an arbitrary classification under Articles 14 and 16. Section 3 of the Rajasthan Universities Teachers (Absorption of Temporary Lecturers) Act, 1979 was construed to require substantive continuous service from a date prior to 25 June 1975 up to commencement of the Ordinance, while allowing functional gaps to be ignored where continuity in substance existed. The legislation was therefore not struck down as discriminatory or arbitrary, and the challenge to the absorption scheme failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Mar 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168859</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>