<?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>2004 (7) TMI 693 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284114</link>
    <description>Recruitment to cooperative societies under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and the 1988 Rules had to comply with mandatory qualifications, procedure, cadre strength and reservation requirements. The State could not use Section 170, Section 182 or Article 162 to validate appointments made in breach of that statutory framework, so the Government Order regularising such appointments was without authority and invalid. Appointments made contrary to Rule 149 were also incapable of regularisation, because regularisation is not a mode of recruitment and illegality in the initial appointment cannot be cured. The 1981 permanent status legislation and the Industrial Disputes Act did not protect such appointees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=592584" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (7) TMI 693 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284114</link>
      <description>Recruitment to cooperative societies under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and the 1988 Rules had to comply with mandatory qualifications, procedure, cadre strength and reservation requirements. The State could not use Section 170, Section 182 or Article 162 to validate appointments made in breach of that statutory framework, so the Government Order regularising such appointments was without authority and invalid. Appointments made contrary to Rule 149 were also incapable of regularisation, because regularisation is not a mode of recruitment and illegality in the initial appointment cannot be cured. The 1981 permanent status legislation and the Industrial Disputes Act did not protect such appointees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>