<?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>1988 (3) TMI 457 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284263</link>
    <description>A uniform minimum period of approved service for consideration for promotion to Grade I was upheld as a valid eligibility condition. The Supreme Court held that experience in service is rationally connected to suitability for a higher post, and the rule-making authority could require eight years&#039; approved service in the Section Officers&#039; Grade for both direct recruits and promotees. Seniority within the cadre could operate only among candidates who already met the prescribed qualification and could not override eligibility. The amended proviso was therefore not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16, and the challenge to the promotion rule failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:15:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593530" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (3) TMI 457 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284263</link>
      <description>A uniform minimum period of approved service for consideration for promotion to Grade I was upheld as a valid eligibility condition. The Supreme Court held that experience in service is rationally connected to suitability for a higher post, and the rule-making authority could require eight years&#039; approved service in the Section Officers&#039; Grade for both direct recruits and promotees. Seniority within the cadre could operate only among candidates who already met the prescribed qualification and could not override eligibility. The amended proviso was therefore not arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 and 16, and the challenge to the promotion rule failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284263</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>