<?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 (10) TMI 579 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171866</link>
    <description>The statutory scheme distinguishes normal recruitment in affiliated colleges from absorption of staff in colleges taken over as constituent colleges. Section 35 governs ordinary appointments requiring prior State approval, while section 4(14) applies to takeover arrangements and vests the university with exclusive authority to examine appointments and decide absorption, subject to scrutiny of legality and regularity. For absorption, only employees working against sanctioned posts or against posts for which proposals had reached the State before the cut-off date were eligible for consideration; claims based on pending university-level proposals or later recommendations were excluded. The later amendments were treated as prospective, and the operative government decisions were not displaced by objections based on prior approval or formal authentication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2015 10:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=392461" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 579 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171866</link>
      <description>The statutory scheme distinguishes normal recruitment in affiliated colleges from absorption of staff in colleges taken over as constituent colleges. Section 35 governs ordinary appointments requiring prior State approval, while section 4(14) applies to takeover arrangements and vests the university with exclusive authority to examine appointments and decide absorption, subject to scrutiny of legality and regularity. For absorption, only employees working against sanctioned posts or against posts for which proposals had reached the State before the cut-off date were eligible for consideration; claims based on pending university-level proposals or later recommendations were excluded. The later amendments were treated as prospective, and the operative government decisions were not displaced by objections based on prior approval or formal authentication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>