<?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>2020 (1) TMI 885 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391272</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC held that disability reservation for blind or low-vision candidates could not be denied merely because no exemption notification had been issued and posts had not been earlier identified; the statutory mandate under the disability law continued to apply, and administrative inaction could not defer compliance indefinitely. It further held that unfilled backlog vacancies in the concerned services had to be carried forward and reconsidered for allocation, so the petitioner was entitled to fresh consideration against reserved vacancies. The Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was set aside, and the respondents were directed to identify suitable vacancies and consider appointment with notional seniority, but without arrears of pay.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jan 2020 08:39:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601326" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 885 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391272</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC held that disability reservation for blind or low-vision candidates could not be denied merely because no exemption notification had been issued and posts had not been earlier identified; the statutory mandate under the disability law continued to apply, and administrative inaction could not defer compliance indefinitely. It further held that unfilled backlog vacancies in the concerned services had to be carried forward and reconsidered for allocation, so the petitioner was entitled to fresh consideration against reserved vacancies. The Tribunal&#039;s contrary view was set aside, and the respondents were directed to identify suitable vacancies and consider appointment with notional seniority, but without arrears of pay.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391272</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>