<?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>1993 (1) TMI 308 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273205</link>
    <description>For a temporary Government servant, the &quot;appointing authority&quot; under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is the authority that actually made the appointment; a termination issued by another authority is without jurisdiction and invalid. A temporary employee may also be discharged on a preliminary assessment of unsuitability without attracting Article 311(2) if the order is not founded on a punitive inquiry, so the termination was not set aside on that basis. The claims of non-payment of notice pay and discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 were rejected on the facts, but the invalidity for want of jurisdiction remained decisive.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2018 18:04:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523162" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (1) TMI 308 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273205</link>
      <description>For a temporary Government servant, the &quot;appointing authority&quot; under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is the authority that actually made the appointment; a termination issued by another authority is without jurisdiction and invalid. A temporary employee may also be discharged on a preliminary assessment of unsuitability without attracting Article 311(2) if the order is not founded on a punitive inquiry, so the termination was not set aside on that basis. The claims of non-payment of notice pay and discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 were rejected on the facts, but the invalidity for want of jurisdiction remained decisive.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273205</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>