<?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 (9) TMI 1120 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399001</link>
    <description>The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the notification requiring an oral examination, and directed the respondent to appoint the petitioner as a &quot;G&quot; Card license holder in compliance with the regulations. The judgment emphasized fair examination practices and adherence to established rules in the selection process, criticizing the authorities for conducting examinations with the intent to reject candidates rather than promote qualified individuals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Nov 2020 11:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=623604" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 1120 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399001</link>
      <description>The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the notification requiring an oral examination, and directed the respondent to appoint the petitioner as a &quot;G&quot; Card license holder in compliance with the regulations. The judgment emphasized fair examination practices and adherence to established rules in the selection process, criticizing the authorities for conducting examinations with the intent to reject candidates rather than promote qualified individuals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399001</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>