<?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>1987 (1) TMI 497 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200401</link>
    <description>The Court held that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 were repealed by implication with the promulgation of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, and the subsequent addition of Rule 32 in 1983 did not revive the old rules. The relaxation order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police in 1981 was deemed invalid as only the Administrator had the authority to relax rules. Additionally, preferential treatment based on descent under Article 16 of the Constitution was found unconstitutional. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were not entitled to recruitment based on the invalid relaxation order and unconstitutional preferential treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:09:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=514902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 497 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200401</link>
      <description>The Court held that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 were repealed by implication with the promulgation of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, and the subsequent addition of Rule 32 in 1983 did not revive the old rules. The relaxation order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police in 1981 was deemed invalid as only the Administrator had the authority to relax rules. Additionally, preferential treatment based on descent under Article 16 of the Constitution was found unconstitutional. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were not entitled to recruitment based on the invalid relaxation order and unconstitutional preferential treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200401</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>