<?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 (9) TMI 165 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331904</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court&#039;s decision to restore the termination order of the appellant&#039;s provisional appointment as &quot;Chemical Examiner Grade-I.&quot; The Court found that the appellant&#039;s appointment was not final and was subject to caste verification, which was crucial in determining his eligibility. The decision of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, concluding that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe &quot;Halba,&quot; was upheld, leading to the termination of his services. The Court clarified that the protection afforded in a previous case did not apply to provisional appointments like the appellant&#039;s.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2022 12:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=440075" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 165 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331904</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court&#039;s decision to restore the termination order of the appellant&#039;s provisional appointment as &quot;Chemical Examiner Grade-I.&quot; The Court found that the appellant&#039;s appointment was not final and was subject to caste verification, which was crucial in determining his eligibility. The decision of the Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee, concluding that the appellant did not belong to the Scheduled Tribe &quot;Halba,&quot; was upheld, leading to the termination of his services. The Court clarified that the protection afforded in a previous case did not apply to provisional appointments like the appellant&#039;s.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=331904</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>