<?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>1968 (3) TMI 108 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169817</link>
    <description>Temporary officiating promotions to Upper Division Clerk and Assistant posts did not create a vested right to continue in those higher posts, because the orders were expressly temporary and part of an evolving service structure. On that basis, the consequential reversion was valid. The service scheme could also be given retrospective effect, since rules made under the proviso to Article 309 may operate retrospectively where the rule-making authority clearly so intends and no contrary legislative provision exists. The challenge under Articles 14 and 16 failed because the scheme was within the authorised rule-making power and the petitioners did not meet its requirements. The impugned scheme and reversion orders were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 May 2015 12:05:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (3) TMI 108 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169817</link>
      <description>Temporary officiating promotions to Upper Division Clerk and Assistant posts did not create a vested right to continue in those higher posts, because the orders were expressly temporary and part of an evolving service structure. On that basis, the consequential reversion was valid. The service scheme could also be given retrospective effect, since rules made under the proviso to Article 309 may operate retrospectively where the rule-making authority clearly so intends and no contrary legislative provision exists. The challenge under Articles 14 and 16 failed because the scheme was within the authorised rule-making power and the petitioners did not meet its requirements. The impugned scheme and reversion orders were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>