<?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>1975 (8) TMI 138 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196479</link>
    <description>The Gujarat Government could validly require the G.D.C. &amp; A. examination as a qualification for promotion of allotted government servants, because the relevant service conditions included the possibility of future valid rules on promotion made by the reorganised State. The protection in section 81(6) of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 was read in the context of the earlier reorganisation framework, and the Central Government&#039;s approval had legal effect within the scheme of the Act. On that basis, Gujarat inherited power to regulate promotional qualifications, and the prescription was not inconsistent with the statutory protection against disadvantageous variation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Dec 2017 10:12:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=498435" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1975 (8) TMI 138 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196479</link>
      <description>The Gujarat Government could validly require the G.D.C. &amp; A. examination as a qualification for promotion of allotted government servants, because the relevant service conditions included the possibility of future valid rules on promotion made by the reorganised State. The protection in section 81(6) of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 was read in the context of the earlier reorganisation framework, and the Central Government&#039;s approval had legal effect within the scheme of the Act. On that basis, Gujarat inherited power to regulate promotional qualifications, and the prescription was not inconsistent with the statutory protection against disadvantageous variation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 1975 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>