<?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>2001 (5) TMI 938 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171420</link>
    <description>Promotion to the post of Research Officer was governed by merit-cum-seniority because the post was a selection post. In such appointments, seniority plays only a secondary role and is relevant only where candidates are otherwise equal in merit and suitability. The Departmental Promotion Committee must assess inter se merit and ability and prepare the select list on that basis. A prior concession that the post was to be filled on seniority-cum-fitness, having been made under a mistaken view of law, did not alter the governing legal position or bind the employer. Seniority alone therefore could not support a claim to promotion.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2015 15:40:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=390809" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 938 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171420</link>
      <description>Promotion to the post of Research Officer was governed by merit-cum-seniority because the post was a selection post. In such appointments, seniority plays only a secondary role and is relevant only where candidates are otherwise equal in merit and suitability. The Departmental Promotion Committee must assess inter se merit and ability and prepare the select list on that basis. A prior concession that the post was to be filled on seniority-cum-fitness, having been made under a mistaken view of law, did not alter the governing legal position or bind the employer. Seniority alone therefore could not support a claim to promotion.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171420</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>