<?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>1999 (2) TMI 709 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294976</link>
    <description>Temporary or stop-gap transferee appointments to Assistant Commercial Tax Officer posts did not confer seniority over regularly appointed direct recruits. Seniority had to be worked out only by reference to substantive appointments within the permanent cadre strength, because the quota for direct recruits and transferees was linked to substantive vacancies and temporary posts did not enlarge that cadre or create a superior ranking right. Only transferee appointees who had held the post substantively within the permanent cadre strength before the direct recruits began probation could be placed above them. The challenge to the revised seniority principle was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 May 2021 14:22:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (2) TMI 709 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294976</link>
      <description>Temporary or stop-gap transferee appointments to Assistant Commercial Tax Officer posts did not confer seniority over regularly appointed direct recruits. Seniority had to be worked out only by reference to substantive appointments within the permanent cadre strength, because the quota for direct recruits and transferees was linked to substantive vacancies and temporary posts did not enlarge that cadre or create a superior ranking right. Only transferee appointees who had held the post substantively within the permanent cadre strength before the direct recruits began probation could be placed above them. The challenge to the revised seniority principle was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294976</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>