<?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>2004 (10) TMI 585 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174500</link>
    <description>Retrospective validation can cure the legal basis of earlier recruitment decisions without usurping judicial power, so long as the legislature acts within competence and constitutional limits. The Haryana Civil Service combined examination law was described as replacing the earlier circular regime with a statutory scheme restricting appointments to advertised vacancies, and it was treated as consistent with Articles 14 and 16 because candidates have no enforceable right beyond advertised posts. However, the proviso to Section 4(3) was held invalid to the limited extent that it authorised withdrawal of appointments already made pursuant to earlier judicial directions, because accrued benefits could not be arbitrarily taken back.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 May 2016 11:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=400704" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 585 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174500</link>
      <description>Retrospective validation can cure the legal basis of earlier recruitment decisions without usurping judicial power, so long as the legislature acts within competence and constitutional limits. The Haryana Civil Service combined examination law was described as replacing the earlier circular regime with a statutory scheme restricting appointments to advertised vacancies, and it was treated as consistent with Articles 14 and 16 because candidates have no enforceable right beyond advertised posts. However, the proviso to Section 4(3) was held invalid to the limited extent that it authorised withdrawal of appointments already made pursuant to earlier judicial directions, because accrued benefits could not be arbitrarily taken back.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>