<?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>2000 (4) TMI 818 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174313</link>
    <description>The governing recruitment rules under Article 309 permitted filling Regional Transport Officer posts by transfer from specified categories, and that scheme was held to prevail over the local cadre arrangement in view of the Presidential Order&#039;s overriding effect. The earlier decision on the same controversy was not per incuriam because it had considered the relevant rules and Presidential Order, and a coordinate Bench could not disregard it without a real basis for concluding it had ceased to be correct in law. The challenge to appointments by transfer therefore failed, and the appointments were treated as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Dec 2025 12:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400198" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (4) TMI 818 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174313</link>
      <description>The governing recruitment rules under Article 309 permitted filling Regional Transport Officer posts by transfer from specified categories, and that scheme was held to prevail over the local cadre arrangement in view of the Presidential Order&#039;s overriding effect. The earlier decision on the same controversy was not per incuriam because it had considered the relevant rules and Presidential Order, and a coordinate Bench could not disregard it without a real basis for concluding it had ceased to be correct in law. The challenge to appointments by transfer therefore failed, and the appointments were treated as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174313</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>