<?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>2002 (2) TMI 1328 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183605</link>
    <description>Under the Maharashtra Judicial Service rules, seniority in the District Judge cadre depends on the date a judge is appointed to work in that cadre, not the earlier date of probationary posting as Additional District Judge. The Court read the seniority and probation provisions conjointly and held that the phrase &quot;to work as&quot; must bear the same meaning in both rules. Accordingly, the probation period spent in the intermediary post could not be counted toward District Judge cadre seniority. The administrative seniority determination treating direct recruits as senior from their initial probationary appointment was inconsistent with the rules and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:33:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=431831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 1328 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183605</link>
      <description>Under the Maharashtra Judicial Service rules, seniority in the District Judge cadre depends on the date a judge is appointed to work in that cadre, not the earlier date of probationary posting as Additional District Judge. The Court read the seniority and probation provisions conjointly and held that the phrase &quot;to work as&quot; must bear the same meaning in both rules. Accordingly, the probation period spent in the intermediary post could not be counted toward District Judge cadre seniority. The administrative seniority determination treating direct recruits as senior from their initial probationary appointment was inconsistent with the rules and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183605</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>