<?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>2006 (12) TMI 567 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284276</link>
    <description>Appointments to public employment made without advertisement, employment exchange notification, or the prescribed selection process cannot be regularised as a matter of right because they fall outside the constitutional scheme under Articles 14 and 16 and the applicable recruitment rules. The distinction between irregular appointments, which may be cured in limited situations, and illegal appointments, which are made in total disregard of that scheme, is decisive; only the former may be considered for one-time regularisation in sanctioned posts under Umadevi. A contempt-based direction cannot be sustained unless there is a clear finding of wilful disobedience, and a later State circular may negate such a premise where it supersedes the earlier policy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2019 12:02:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 567 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284276</link>
      <description>Appointments to public employment made without advertisement, employment exchange notification, or the prescribed selection process cannot be regularised as a matter of right because they fall outside the constitutional scheme under Articles 14 and 16 and the applicable recruitment rules. The distinction between irregular appointments, which may be cured in limited situations, and illegal appointments, which are made in total disregard of that scheme, is decisive; only the former may be considered for one-time regularisation in sanctioned posts under Umadevi. A contempt-based direction cannot be sustained unless there is a clear finding of wilful disobedience, and a later State circular may negate such a premise where it supersedes the earlier policy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>