<?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>2009 (8) TMI 1172 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182571</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court set aside the High Court&#039;s judgment, emphasizing compliance with circular guidelines and the absence of power for relaxation in transfer decisions. The Court recognized the positive concept of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle of estoppel in transfer cases. The appeal was allowed, but the first respondent&#039;s seniority was to be counted from the date of joining the U.D.C. post, without reverting to the L.D.C. position.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 May 2016 14:36:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1172 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182571</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court set aside the High Court&#039;s judgment, emphasizing compliance with circular guidelines and the absence of power for relaxation in transfer decisions. The Court recognized the positive concept of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle of estoppel in transfer cases. The appeal was allowed, but the first respondent&#039;s seniority was to be counted from the date of joining the U.D.C. post, without reverting to the L.D.C. position.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182571</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>