<?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>1987 (2) TMI 520 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191697</link>
    <description>Rule 51(A) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules gives qualified teachers relieved from terminated vacancies a preferential right to appointment against later vacancies under the same educational agency. That preference is not a matter of unrestricted managerial discretion where rival claimants exist; the appended note directs that priority follows the date of first appointment, and if that is identical, age governs. On the stated facts, both teachers were eligible and had been relieved for termination of vacancies, but the appellant had earlier service and no abandonment or disqualification was shown. The earlier appointee therefore had the superior claim and was entitled to appointment in preference to the later claimant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 520 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191697</link>
      <description>Rule 51(A) of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules gives qualified teachers relieved from terminated vacancies a preferential right to appointment against later vacancies under the same educational agency. That preference is not a matter of unrestricted managerial discretion where rival claimants exist; the appended note directs that priority follows the date of first appointment, and if that is identical, age governs. On the stated facts, both teachers were eligible and had been relieved for termination of vacancies, but the appellant had earlier service and no abandonment or disqualification was shown. The earlier appointee therefore had the superior claim and was entitled to appointment in preference to the later claimant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191697</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>