https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189493 The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that public employment must adhere to constitutional and statutory requirements. Regularization does not equate to appointment, and recruitment through regularization is not legally valid. The Court stressed that appointments must align with statutory rules, and regularization does not confer permanency. It was clarified that appointment without authority or in violation of mandatory provisions is void. The judgment underscored the necessity of compliance with statutory rules in appointments and clarified that entitlement to pay scale is dependent on holding a sanctioned post. The Court directed the State to expedite filling vacant posts and consider the respondents' cases alongside other eligible candidates, suggesting relaxation of age bars for the respondents who had worked with the appellants. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2017 11:33:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189493 The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that public employment must adhere to constitutional and statutory requirements. Regularization does not equate to appointment, and recruitment through regularization is not legally valid. The Court stressed that appointments must align with statutory rules, and regularization does not confer permanency. It was clarified that appointment without authority or in violation of mandatory provisions is void. The judgment underscored the necessity of compliance with statutory rules in appointments and clarified that entitlement to pay scale is dependent on holding a sanctioned post. The Court directed the State to expedite filling vacant posts and consider the respondents' cases alongside other eligible candidates, suggesting relaxation of age bars for the respondents who had worked with the appellants. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189493