<?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>1967 (2) TMI 107 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287540</link>
    <description>The court upheld the constitutional validity of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, finding that they were framed after proper consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission. It clarified that consultation under Article 234 is for rule-making, not individual appointments. The court dismissed the petition, deeming the petitioner&#039;s arguments unfounded and ordered the dismissal with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2020 08:45:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=610558" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (2) TMI 107 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287540</link>
      <description>The court upheld the constitutional validity of the U.P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, finding that they were framed after proper consultation with the High Court and the Public Service Commission. It clarified that consultation under Article 234 is for rule-making, not individual appointments. The court dismissed the petition, deeming the petitioner&#039;s arguments unfounded and ordered the dismissal with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>