<?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>2018 (10) TMI 1212 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369246</link>
    <description>Rule 4(2)(c) of the Rajasthan Excise Service (General Branch) Rules, 1974 requires the Government to determine cadre strength from time to time and to encadre District Excise Officer posts accordingly, with a minimum of four posts; earlier coordinate-bench rulings held that promotions alone do not satisfy this duty. Rule 13 was read as requiring merit-based appointment, through the prescribed procedure, to senior posts encadred in the Service, while senior posts not encadred may be filled on deputation from other services for a limited period. Applying those earlier decisions, the High Court declined to reopen the settled interpretation and dismissed the challenge to Rules 4(2)(c) and 13.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2018 13:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=539309" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 1212 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369246</link>
      <description>Rule 4(2)(c) of the Rajasthan Excise Service (General Branch) Rules, 1974 requires the Government to determine cadre strength from time to time and to encadre District Excise Officer posts accordingly, with a minimum of four posts; earlier coordinate-bench rulings held that promotions alone do not satisfy this duty. Rule 13 was read as requiring merit-based appointment, through the prescribed procedure, to senior posts encadred in the Service, while senior posts not encadred may be filled on deputation from other services for a limited period. Applying those earlier decisions, the High Court declined to reopen the settled interpretation and dismissed the challenge to Rules 4(2)(c) and 13.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369246</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>