https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198758 Ad hoc stenographers could not be treated as regularly appointed from their initial dates of appointment for seniority, because the appointments were expressly temporary, the governing rules did not authorise regularisation dehors the scheme, and the prescribed Special Qualifying Examination had not been passed. Long continuance in service and administrative confirmation orders did not confer a right to seniority over regularly selected stenographers. The Tribunal challenge was not barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose with the impugned seniority orders and the dispute involved continuing representations and revised lists. The writ petitions claiming seniority failed, while the connected challenge to the Tribunal's contrary view succeeded. en-us Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Feb 2018 14:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198758 Ad hoc stenographers could not be treated as regularly appointed from their initial dates of appointment for seniority, because the appointments were expressly temporary, the governing rules did not authorise regularisation dehors the scheme, and the prescribed Special Qualifying Examination had not been passed. Long continuance in service and administrative confirmation orders did not confer a right to seniority over regularly selected stenographers. The Tribunal challenge was not barred by limitation, as the cause of action arose with the impugned seniority orders and the dispute involved continuing representations and revised lists. The writ petitions claiming seniority failed, while the connected challenge to the Tribunal's contrary view succeeded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198758