<?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 (11) TMI 699 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284278</link>
    <description>An appointment made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme and statutory recruitment rules is illegal, while an irregular appointment is one where the rules are substantially complied with but some procedural requirement is not strictly followed; the distinction turns on whether the defect goes to the root of the appointment. A daily-wage worker appointed dehors the recruitment rules, without a sanctioned post, clear vacancy, or valid selection, acquires no legal right to regularisation or permanent status merely through long continuance in service. The Court therefore held that such relief could not be granted for an illegal appointment, set aside the directions for permanency, and protected benefits already paid from recovery.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2019 12:46:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=593606" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 699 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284278</link>
      <description>An appointment made in total disregard of the constitutional scheme and statutory recruitment rules is illegal, while an irregular appointment is one where the rules are substantially complied with but some procedural requirement is not strictly followed; the distinction turns on whether the defect goes to the root of the appointment. A daily-wage worker appointed dehors the recruitment rules, without a sanctioned post, clear vacancy, or valid selection, acquires no legal right to regularisation or permanent status merely through long continuance in service. The Court therefore held that such relief could not be granted for an illegal appointment, set aside the directions for permanency, and protected benefits already paid from recovery.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>