<?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>1965 (5) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289848</link>
    <description>A temporary deputation did not sever the employee&#039;s lien or his entitlement to be considered for promotion when similarly placed employees were assessed, so the failure to include him was wrongful. The Rajasthan Electricity Board, being a statutory body with public duties, rule-making power and control over service conditions, fell within Article 12. Its promotion decisions were therefore subject to Articles 14 and 16, and denial of equal consideration offended the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity. The employee was entitled to be considered for promotion, with consequential seniority if found fit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2020 12:41:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=620587" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (5) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289848</link>
      <description>A temporary deputation did not sever the employee&#039;s lien or his entitlement to be considered for promotion when similarly placed employees were assessed, so the failure to include him was wrongful. The Rajasthan Electricity Board, being a statutory body with public duties, rule-making power and control over service conditions, fell within Article 12. Its promotion decisions were therefore subject to Articles 14 and 16, and denial of equal consideration offended the constitutional guarantee of equality of opportunity. The employee was entitled to be considered for promotion, with consequential seniority if found fit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289848</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>