<?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>2007 (10) TMI 617 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173101</link>
    <description>A valid retrospective amendment to service rules governed a recruitment process that had not reached finality, so the enhanced women&#039;s reservation applied to the pending selection rather than the rule in force when the advertisement was issued. The State was competent to amend the rules retrospectively under Article 309, and no accrued right was taken away because candidates retained eligibility and the right to be considered. The challenge to the second screening test also failed because the same schedule applied to all candidates, there was no discriminatory treatment, and participation without protest precluded objection to the preparation time. The recruitment was therefore to proceed under the amended rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2017 15:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=396347" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 617 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173101</link>
      <description>A valid retrospective amendment to service rules governed a recruitment process that had not reached finality, so the enhanced women&#039;s reservation applied to the pending selection rather than the rule in force when the advertisement was issued. The State was competent to amend the rules retrospectively under Article 309, and no accrued right was taken away because candidates retained eligibility and the right to be considered. The challenge to the second screening test also failed because the same schedule applied to all candidates, there was no discriminatory treatment, and participation without protest precluded objection to the preparation time. The recruitment was therefore to proceed under the amended rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173101</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>