https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276476 In a reorganised public service, administrative instructions governing absorption and seniority were upheld as a rational classification designed to balance efficiency, quality and phased intake, and the challenge that the Office Memorandum of 22 June 1949 and Rule 18(1) violated Articles 14 and 16 failed. The Memorandum was confined to the initial constitution of the Assistants' grade and did not require seniority to follow continuous length of service alone. However, once Assistants were validly absorbed under that framework, later direct recruits could not be placed above them, as that would defeat the equality principle in public employment. The objections based on delay, laches and estoppel were rejected on the facts. en-us Fri, 17 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Nov 2018 17:02:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276476 In a reorganised public service, administrative instructions governing absorption and seniority were upheld as a rational classification designed to balance efficiency, quality and phased intake, and the challenge that the Office Memorandum of 22 June 1949 and Rule 18(1) violated Articles 14 and 16 failed. The Memorandum was confined to the initial constitution of the Assistants' grade and did not require seniority to follow continuous length of service alone. However, once Assistants were validly absorbed under that framework, later direct recruits could not be placed above them, as that would defeat the equality principle in public employment. The objections based on delay, laches and estoppel were rejected on the facts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Jan 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276476