<?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>1998 (2) TMI 587 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173645</link>
    <description>A notification amending cadre strength under the All India Services framework was treated as only an amendment to the cadre strength regulation, not a higher-ranking rule. It could not be harmoniously read with the statutory 33 1/3 per cent ceiling on promotion from the State Civil Service, because increasing promotional posts without adjusting the recruitment scheme defeated that limit. Earlier tribunal directions requiring reconsideration did not authorise promotions beyond the statutory quota. Existing appointees were allowed to continue, but seniority and year of allotment had to be redetermined in accordance with the governing rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Sep 2015 11:22:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397998" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (2) TMI 587 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173645</link>
      <description>A notification amending cadre strength under the All India Services framework was treated as only an amendment to the cadre strength regulation, not a higher-ranking rule. It could not be harmoniously read with the statutory 33 1/3 per cent ceiling on promotion from the State Civil Service, because increasing promotional posts without adjusting the recruitment scheme defeated that limit. Earlier tribunal directions requiring reconsideration did not authorise promotions beyond the statutory quota. Existing appointees were allowed to continue, but seniority and year of allotment had to be redetermined in accordance with the governing rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Feb 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>