<?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>1996 (5) TMI 430 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193765</link>
    <description>Annual preparation of the select list for appointment to the Indian Police Service is mandatory, but a State Police officer does not acquire a vested right to appointment, seniority, or an earlier year of allotment merely because the committee meeting was delayed or because of continuous officiation in State service. Year of allotment depends on inclusion in the select list, UPSC approval, and appointment under the prescribed rules. Here, the delay in convening the selection meeting was explained by the strike situation, the committee was eventually held, and the officer was placed in the select list and assigned seniority in accordance with the rules. The claim to an earlier year of allotment therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 16:03:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485805" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (5) TMI 430 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193765</link>
      <description>Annual preparation of the select list for appointment to the Indian Police Service is mandatory, but a State Police officer does not acquire a vested right to appointment, seniority, or an earlier year of allotment merely because the committee meeting was delayed or because of continuous officiation in State service. Year of allotment depends on inclusion in the select list, UPSC approval, and appointment under the prescribed rules. Here, the delay in convening the selection meeting was explained by the strike situation, the committee was eventually held, and the officer was placed in the select list and assigned seniority in accordance with the rules. The claim to an earlier year of allotment therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193765</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>