<?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>1982 (10) TMI 208 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169914</link>
    <description>An advertisement for recruitment does not create a vested right to appointment, so posts already advertised may be withdrawn from the Public Service Commission&#039;s purview under the proviso to Article 320(3). Temporary appointments made in public interest under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules may also be regularised where the appointees hold the prescribed qualifications and the appointments meet administrative exigencies; this is not inconsistent with the service rules or Article 16. The selection challenges were rejected, while candidates who had already participated were granted consequential relief through finalisation of the select list and priority appointment within the selection zone before outsider appointments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 May 2015 15:56:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=384626" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (10) TMI 208 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169914</link>
      <description>An advertisement for recruitment does not create a vested right to appointment, so posts already advertised may be withdrawn from the Public Service Commission&#039;s purview under the proviso to Article 320(3). Temporary appointments made in public interest under Rule 10(a)(i)(1) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Services Rules may also be regularised where the appointees hold the prescribed qualifications and the appointments meet administrative exigencies; this is not inconsistent with the service rules or Article 16. The selection challenges were rejected, while candidates who had already participated were granted consequential relief through finalisation of the select list and priority appointment within the selection zone before outsider appointments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169914</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>