<?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>2009 (2) TMI 882 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273321</link>
    <description>Appointment made against a leave vacancy does not confer a right to regularization in a permanent post unless the governing recruitment rules for substantive appointment are satisfied. Interim approval granted during pendency of proceedings remains provisional and does not create a vested right to continued service after final adjudication. Back wages were also unsustainable because there was no lawful entitlement to continue in service and no work was performed after the adverse final order. The Division Bench judgment was set aside, the Single Judge&#039;s decision restored, and the challenge to refusal of regularization failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jun 2018 11:47:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=523827" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 882 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273321</link>
      <description>Appointment made against a leave vacancy does not confer a right to regularization in a permanent post unless the governing recruitment rules for substantive appointment are satisfied. Interim approval granted during pendency of proceedings remains provisional and does not create a vested right to continued service after final adjudication. Back wages were also unsustainable because there was no lawful entitlement to continue in service and no work was performed after the adverse final order. The Division Bench judgment was set aside, the Single Judge&#039;s decision restored, and the challenge to refusal of regularization failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>