https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189238 The Court upheld the ad hoc nature of the appellants' promotions to the post of Law Assistant, denying their claim for regular appointment. It found that the promotion was justified due to service exigencies and limited vacancies for regular appointments. Despite acknowledging some injustice to the appellants, the Court emphasized that there could be no estoppel against the law. The appeal was dismissed, but the respondents were permitted to reassess the appellants' appointment as Law Assistants under appropriate conditions. en-us Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Jan 2017 17:41:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189238 The Court upheld the ad hoc nature of the appellants' promotions to the post of Law Assistant, denying their claim for regular appointment. It found that the promotion was justified due to service exigencies and limited vacancies for regular appointments. Despite acknowledging some injustice to the appellants, the Court emphasized that there could be no estoppel against the law. The appeal was dismissed, but the respondents were permitted to reassess the appellants' appointment as Law Assistants under appropriate conditions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189238