<?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>2006 (1) TMI 627 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184355</link>
    <description>Judicial review over non-appointment to a Judicial Member post under the Administrative Tribunals Act is narrowly confined where the Government consults the Chief Justice of India and places the relevant material, including antecedents and intelligence inputs, before that constitutional authority. Such consultation is an effective safeguard, and the court will not reassess the merit-based decision as an appellate body. Mere inclusion in a select list does not create a vested or enforceable right to appointment, though the decision must remain bona fide and non-arbitrary. The stated conclusion is that the challenge to non-appointment failed and selection alone could not compel appointment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2024 14:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434036" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (1) TMI 627 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184355</link>
      <description>Judicial review over non-appointment to a Judicial Member post under the Administrative Tribunals Act is narrowly confined where the Government consults the Chief Justice of India and places the relevant material, including antecedents and intelligence inputs, before that constitutional authority. Such consultation is an effective safeguard, and the court will not reassess the merit-based decision as an appellate body. Mere inclusion in a select list does not create a vested or enforceable right to appointment, though the decision must remain bona fide and non-arbitrary. The stated conclusion is that the challenge to non-appointment failed and selection alone could not compel appointment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jan 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184355</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>