<?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>2016 (3) TMI 1102 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184905</link>
    <description>Appointment of State law officers is a public function subject to Article 14, so the process must be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective. The Court held that a realistic assessment of need is a first prerequisite, and found the existing appointments were made ad hoc without workload assessment. It also found no definite scheme, norms or merit-based procedure, with selections left to informal recommendations and discretion. The Court therefore required a structured process for future appointments and extensions, including a selection committee, prescribed criteria and consultation with the Chief Justice or a committee of judges, while leaving existing appointments undisturbed for their current term.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2016 20:31:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=435938" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 1102 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184905</link>
      <description>Appointment of State law officers is a public function subject to Article 14, so the process must be fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective. The Court held that a realistic assessment of need is a first prerequisite, and found the existing appointments were made ad hoc without workload assessment. It also found no definite scheme, norms or merit-based procedure, with selections left to informal recommendations and discretion. The Court therefore required a structured process for future appointments and extensions, including a selection committee, prescribed criteria and consultation with the Chief Justice or a committee of judges, while leaving existing appointments undisturbed for their current term.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184905</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>