<?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>2010 (3) TMI 1152 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183444</link>
    <description>Service rules framed under Article 309 governed intra-batch seniority by the rank secured in the prescribed final examination, not merely by the date of appointment. The Court noted that this rule applied to the relevant ranger training structure and that later administrative steps could not unsettle seniority already recognised in gradation lists. It further accepted that changes in course structure had made the literal training provisions impracticable, so the State&#039;s one-year and two-year training arrangement operated as a practical implementation of the rules rather than a basis to disturb settled seniority. The earlier administrative determination had attained finality, and the later note was inconsistent with the governing rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2023 10:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (3) TMI 1152 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183444</link>
      <description>Service rules framed under Article 309 governed intra-batch seniority by the rank secured in the prescribed final examination, not merely by the date of appointment. The Court noted that this rule applied to the relevant ranger training structure and that later administrative steps could not unsettle seniority already recognised in gradation lists. It further accepted that changes in course structure had made the literal training provisions impracticable, so the State&#039;s one-year and two-year training arrangement operated as a practical implementation of the rules rather than a basis to disturb settled seniority. The earlier administrative determination had attained finality, and the later note was inconsistent with the governing rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183444</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>