<?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>2014 (5) TMI 1120 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186437</link>
    <description>Under the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, the quota between direct recruits and promotees applied at the confirmation stage because seniority was tied to the date of confirmation under Rule 10, read with the other service rules. The rules were construed to require confirmations to be aligned with available quota vacancies, with a rotational arrangement permitted to preserve that balance. The earlier interpretation in Paramjit Singh remained binding; B.S. Yadav did not overrule it, but only clarified that quota and rota depend on the wording and scheme of the relevant rules. The High Court therefore correctly followed Paramjit Singh and sustained the seniority list.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2016 10:37:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 1120 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186437</link>
      <description>Under the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, the quota between direct recruits and promotees applied at the confirmation stage because seniority was tied to the date of confirmation under Rule 10, read with the other service rules. The rules were construed to require confirmations to be aligned with available quota vacancies, with a rotational arrangement permitted to preserve that balance. The earlier interpretation in Paramjit Singh remained binding; B.S. Yadav did not overrule it, but only clarified that quota and rota depend on the wording and scheme of the relevant rules. The High Court therefore correctly followed Paramjit Singh and sustained the seniority list.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186437</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>