<?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>2011 (4) TMI 1518 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291718</link>
    <description>Temporary posts of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer were not treated as cadre posts for the relevant period, because stopgap appointments under Rule 10(a)(i) did not confer cadre status and the later Government Order making such posts permanent operated prospectively. Seniority followed appointment to the service or cadre post under the applicable rules, not length of service in a temporary post, so persons appointed outside the cadre could not rank above regularly recruited direct recruits. The impugned seniority list, having been framed in line with the Supreme Court&#039;s directions and earlier writ adjudication, was upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2020 15:17:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628370" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 1518 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291718</link>
      <description>Temporary posts of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer were not treated as cadre posts for the relevant period, because stopgap appointments under Rule 10(a)(i) did not confer cadre status and the later Government Order making such posts permanent operated prospectively. Seniority followed appointment to the service or cadre post under the applicable rules, not length of service in a temporary post, so persons appointed outside the cadre could not rank above regularly recruited direct recruits. The impugned seniority list, having been framed in line with the Supreme Court&#039;s directions and earlier writ adjudication, was upheld and the writ petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291718</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>