<?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>2003 (7) TMI 698 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179058</link>
    <description>The SC dismissed both appeals, concluding that the appellants lacked entitlement to appointments based on their positions in the merit list. The legality of appointments was upheld, affirming the established selection process and seniority order. The Court rejected the appellants&#039; plea to alter existing seniority, directing each party to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2024 19:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416954" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 698 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179058</link>
      <description>The SC dismissed both appeals, concluding that the appellants lacked entitlement to appointments based on their positions in the merit list. The legality of appointments was upheld, affirming the established selection process and seniority order. The Court rejected the appellants&#039; plea to alter existing seniority, directing each party to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179058</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>