<?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>1996 (12) TMI 396 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185065</link>
    <description>Recruitment initiated by interview after the commencement of a reservation statute is subject to that statute, because the saving clause protects only selection processes already started before commencement. Where the interview began after the Act came into force, the recruitment had to comply with the reservation regime under Section 3(1). A candidate or selectee has no vested or indefeasible right to appointment merely because a vacancy exists or a name appears in a select list, and mandamus cannot compel an appointment that would contravene the statute. The direction to appoint contrary to the reservation law was therefore invalid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jul 2016 16:42:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=436734" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (12) TMI 396 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185065</link>
      <description>Recruitment initiated by interview after the commencement of a reservation statute is subject to that statute, because the saving clause protects only selection processes already started before commencement. Where the interview began after the Act came into force, the recruitment had to comply with the reservation regime under Section 3(1). A candidate or selectee has no vested or indefeasible right to appointment merely because a vacancy exists or a name appears in a select list, and mandamus cannot compel an appointment that would contravene the statute. The direction to appoint contrary to the reservation law was therefore invalid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>