<?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>1993 (1) TMI 293 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173916</link>
    <description>A selection or appointment should not be disturbed without a clear finding on the decisive eligibility and relaxation questions, and the Tribunal&#039;s direction for fresh selection was therefore unsustainable on the material before it. Eligibility and suitability for appointment are ordinarily assessed with reference to the last date fixed for receipt of applications, unless the recruitment notification provides otherwise; a candidate becoming eligible later cannot ordinarily claim consideration for the selection already initiated. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, and the impugned order was not allowed to stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2015 16:32:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (1) TMI 293 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173916</link>
      <description>A selection or appointment should not be disturbed without a clear finding on the decisive eligibility and relaxation questions, and the Tribunal&#039;s direction for fresh selection was therefore unsustainable on the material before it. Eligibility and suitability for appointment are ordinarily assessed with reference to the last date fixed for receipt of applications, unless the recruitment notification provides otherwise; a candidate becoming eligible later cannot ordinarily claim consideration for the selection already initiated. The matter was remitted for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, and the impugned order was not allowed to stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>