<?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 (2) TMI 1300 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193094</link>
    <description>A validating law cures a pre-existing legal defect in a prior act or proceeding; a measure that instead deems ad hoc appointees to be regularly appointed operates as a regularisation scheme, not a strict validation law. The text also states that a limited one-time regularisation measure for a distinct class of qualified, continuously serving ad hoc engineers can satisfy Articles 14 and 16 where the classification is rational and linked to the object of utilising their services. It further explains that seniority may count uninterrupted officiating service after regularisation, so the challenged seniority rule was treated as constitutionally permissible.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Jul 2017 07:31:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=481029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 1300 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193094</link>
      <description>A validating law cures a pre-existing legal defect in a prior act or proceeding; a measure that instead deems ad hoc appointees to be regularly appointed operates as a regularisation scheme, not a strict validation law. The text also states that a limited one-time regularisation measure for a distinct class of qualified, continuously serving ad hoc engineers can satisfy Articles 14 and 16 where the classification is rational and linked to the object of utilising their services. It further explains that seniority may count uninterrupted officiating service after regularisation, so the challenged seniority rule was treated as constitutionally permissible.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193094</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>