https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175864 The Court held that final Tribunal directions granting regularization could not be disturbed in collateral writ proceedings where those orders had not been challenged, and the High Court was wrong to rely on P. Venkata Kumari because it concerned a different enactment. It also held that regularization under G.O. Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 is available only against clear vacancies; where no clear vacancy existed, a blanket direction to regularize could not stand. The Tribunal's earlier final orders were sustained in one matter, but similar relief in the connected appeals was set aside for want of vacancies. en-us Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Dec 2015 16:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175864 The Court held that final Tribunal directions granting regularization could not be disturbed in collateral writ proceedings where those orders had not been challenged, and the High Court was wrong to rely on P. Venkata Kumari because it concerned a different enactment. It also held that regularization under G.O. Ms. No. 212 dated 22.4.1994 is available only against clear vacancies; where no clear vacancy existed, a blanket direction to regularize could not stand. The Tribunal's earlier final orders were sustained in one matter, but similar relief in the connected appeals was set aside for want of vacancies. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 06 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175864