<?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>1974 (12) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183817</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the joint seniority list prepared by the State Government, granting seniority to respondents Nos. 3 to 19 over Dr. Jagjit Singh and the appellant. The Court found that the order dated 4th December, 1967, did not contravene the principle of seniority based on continuous service from the date of appointment, as the appointments of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 were effective from 8th April, 1964, predating those of the appellant and Dr. Jagjit Singh. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:17:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (12) TMI 76 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183817</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the joint seniority list prepared by the State Government, granting seniority to respondents Nos. 3 to 19 over Dr. Jagjit Singh and the appellant. The Court found that the order dated 4th December, 1967, did not contravene the principle of seniority based on continuous service from the date of appointment, as the appointments of respondents Nos. 3 to 19 were effective from 8th April, 1964, predating those of the appellant and Dr. Jagjit Singh. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Dec 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>