<?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>2015 (9) TMI 1567 - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193739</link>
    <description>Compassionate appointment to a School Inspector post was described as valid where made under the applicable scheme and enabling powers in a hardship setting, and the appointment was sustained. On seniority, the document states that the issue had to be decided independently because it had not been finally determined earlier. It applies the principle that seniority among direct recruits follows the date of first substantive appointment against a clear vacancy, or, where candidates are appointed on the same recruitment basis without joining delay, their order in the select panel. The impugned seniority list was held unsustainable to the extent it placed an earlier appointee below later appointees, and seniority was to be corrected with consequential benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 08:35:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485693" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 1567 - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193739</link>
      <description>Compassionate appointment to a School Inspector post was described as valid where made under the applicable scheme and enabling powers in a hardship setting, and the appointment was sustained. On seniority, the document states that the issue had to be decided independently because it had not been finally determined earlier. It applies the principle that seniority among direct recruits follows the date of first substantive appointment against a clear vacancy, or, where candidates are appointed on the same recruitment basis without joining delay, their order in the select panel. The impugned seniority list was held unsustainable to the extent it placed an earlier appointee below later appointees, and seniority was to be corrected with consequential benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193739</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>