<?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>2003 (4) TMI 561 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171828</link>
    <description>Rule 8 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 continued to apply to employees appointed to another service on their own applications where the appointments fell within the deeming fiction in Note 1, namely applications invited, sponsored or recommended by the Government or competent authority in the exigencies of public service. On the recorded facts, the employees&#039; transfers to the Co-operative Department satisfied that condition. Their lien in the former service was not lost merely because they had completed probation, as lien arises only on confirmation and permanence. As no confirmation order had been issued in the Co-operative Department, they retained the relevant protection and could not be excluded from consideration in the promotion list.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2025 22:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (4) TMI 561 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171828</link>
      <description>Rule 8 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 continued to apply to employees appointed to another service on their own applications where the appointments fell within the deeming fiction in Note 1, namely applications invited, sponsored or recommended by the Government or competent authority in the exigencies of public service. On the recorded facts, the employees&#039; transfers to the Co-operative Department satisfied that condition. Their lien in the former service was not lost merely because they had completed probation, as lien arises only on confirmation and permanence. As no confirmation order had been issued in the Co-operative Department, they retained the relevant protection and could not be excluded from consideration in the promotion list.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>