<?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>2016 (2) TMI 1227 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280237</link>
    <description>Women candidates were entitled to the ten-year age relaxation under the special women&#039;s rules read with the State Services Examination Rules, because those rules preserved the benefit for the examination and had to be interpreted purposively to advance women&#039;s participation in public employment. The recruitment was governed by the 2000 rules applicable to the vacancy year, but those rules did not exhaust age-relaxation policy. The later express women&#039;s relaxation clause in the 2005 rules reinforced that the omission in the earlier rules was not intended to withdraw the benefit. The candidate was therefore eligible for consideration for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2019 08:11:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=568402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 1227 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280237</link>
      <description>Women candidates were entitled to the ten-year age relaxation under the special women&#039;s rules read with the State Services Examination Rules, because those rules preserved the benefit for the examination and had to be interpreted purposively to advance women&#039;s participation in public employment. The recruitment was governed by the 2000 rules applicable to the vacancy year, but those rules did not exhaust age-relaxation policy. The later express women&#039;s relaxation clause in the 2005 rules reinforced that the omission in the earlier rules was not intended to withdraw the benefit. The candidate was therefore eligible for consideration for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280237</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>