<?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>2002 (7) TMI 827 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295211</link>
    <description>Residence-based bonus marks for public employment as primary school teachers were held unconstitutional because residence in a district or rural area, by itself, could not justify a preference in State service without constitutional or parliamentary authorisation. The policy also lacked a demonstrated rational nexus with the stated aims of improving primary education, rural uplift, local dialect accommodation, and teacher retention, and it was vague in fixing criteria for rural residence. The invalidity was applied prospectively to protect appointments already made under the earlier view, with relief confined to the petitioners and later appointments or pending selections after the cut-off date.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 May 2021 17:20:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=645015" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 827 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295211</link>
      <description>Residence-based bonus marks for public employment as primary school teachers were held unconstitutional because residence in a district or rural area, by itself, could not justify a preference in State service without constitutional or parliamentary authorisation. The policy also lacked a demonstrated rational nexus with the stated aims of improving primary education, rural uplift, local dialect accommodation, and teacher retention, and it was vague in fixing criteria for rural residence. The invalidity was applied prospectively to protect appointments already made under the earlier view, with relief confined to the petitioners and later appointments or pending selections after the cut-off date.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295211</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>