<?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>1979 (3) TMI 204 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173409</link>
    <description>Executive instructions may validly supplement promotion regulations when they assist assessment of merit and suitability and do not contradict the governing scheme; integrity can be treated as an element of suitability where assessment is based on service records. The resolutions requiring an integrity certificate were therefore held consistent with the regulations. However, exclusion from the select list could not stand on the existing record because the adverse confidential entry and related representations had not been properly decided, and the stated reasons for non-selection were insufficient. The appellant&#039;s case required fresh reconsideration by the Selection Committee after disposal of the pending representations and on the basis of the complete service record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:10:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397338" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (3) TMI 204 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173409</link>
      <description>Executive instructions may validly supplement promotion regulations when they assist assessment of merit and suitability and do not contradict the governing scheme; integrity can be treated as an element of suitability where assessment is based on service records. The resolutions requiring an integrity certificate were therefore held consistent with the regulations. However, exclusion from the select list could not stand on the existing record because the adverse confidential entry and related representations had not been properly decided, and the stated reasons for non-selection were insufficient. The appellant&#039;s case required fresh reconsideration by the Selection Committee after disposal of the pending representations and on the basis of the complete service record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Mar 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173409</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>