<?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>2004 (1) TMI 674 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171546</link>
    <description>Voluntary service without remuneration and without an established statutory service status did not amount to holding an office of profit under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution and Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The statutory scheme on provincialisation did not automatically make the teachers Government servants, and a valid regularisation or appointment still had to come into existence. The purported regularisation was only provisional, and in any event the appellant was no longer in service when it was said to take effect. As no subsisting employer-employee relationship with the State existed, the appellant was not disqualified and the election could not be invalidated on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=391160" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 674 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171546</link>
      <description>Voluntary service without remuneration and without an established statutory service status did not amount to holding an office of profit under Article 191(1)(a) of the Constitution and Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The statutory scheme on provincialisation did not automatically make the teachers Government servants, and a valid regularisation or appointment still had to come into existence. The purported regularisation was only provisional, and in any event the appellant was no longer in service when it was said to take effect. As no subsisting employer-employee relationship with the State existed, the appellant was not disqualified and the election could not be invalidated on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>