<?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>1976 (11) TMI 199 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183960</link>
    <description>Administrative instructions, rather than a statutory rule, governed promotion to Assistant Commissioner, and the note records that a consistent executive practice accepted 8 years&#039; experience where the earlier Office Manual referred to 10 years and used flexible wording. It also explains the promotion scheme under which the Departmental Promotion Committee first fixed the field of choice by running seniority, then excluded officers found unfit, and finally assessed the remaining officers on merit. The note further states that eligibility was to be tested on the date of the Committee&#039;s consideration, not by relating it back to earlier ad hoc promotions or vacancy dates.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jun 2016 12:48:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=432991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (11) TMI 199 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183960</link>
      <description>Administrative instructions, rather than a statutory rule, governed promotion to Assistant Commissioner, and the note records that a consistent executive practice accepted 8 years&#039; experience where the earlier Office Manual referred to 10 years and used flexible wording. It also explains the promotion scheme under which the Departmental Promotion Committee first fixed the field of choice by running seniority, then excluded officers found unfit, and finally assessed the remaining officers on merit. The note further states that eligibility was to be tested on the date of the Committee&#039;s consideration, not by relating it back to earlier ad hoc promotions or vacancy dates.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Nov 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>