<?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>2011 (8) TMI 1100 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173921</link>
    <description>Eligibility for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector had to be satisfied on the last date fixed for applications, because the service rules and advertisement made the prescribed educational, technical and driving qualifications mandatory. Later acquisition of the qualifications could not cure the defect. A learner&#039;s licence was not equivalent to a driving licence, since the statutory scheme treated the two as distinct and the recruitment rule required an effective driving licence. The Court also held that ineligible appointees could not be allowed to continue in service or be regularised through Article 142, as that would validate an illegal appointment and prejudice eligible candidates. The challenge failed, subject only to a limited direction for fresh selection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2015 09:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1100 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173921</link>
      <description>Eligibility for appointment as Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector had to be satisfied on the last date fixed for applications, because the service rules and advertisement made the prescribed educational, technical and driving qualifications mandatory. Later acquisition of the qualifications could not cure the defect. A learner&#039;s licence was not equivalent to a driving licence, since the statutory scheme treated the two as distinct and the recruitment rule required an effective driving licence. The Court also held that ineligible appointees could not be allowed to continue in service or be regularised through Article 142, as that would validate an illegal appointment and prejudice eligible candidates. The challenge failed, subject only to a limited direction for fresh selection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173921</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>