<?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>2019 (5) TMI 1908 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298248</link>
    <description>The Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2018 was upheld because it addressed the earlier invalidity through expert-committee data on backwardness, inadequate representation and administrative efficiency. A validating law may operate retrospectively where it removes the defect underlying prior invalidation rather than merely overriding a judicial decision. Reservation of the Bill for presidential consideration was permissible where constitutional doubt existed, and presidential assent was not subject to judicial scrutiny. Creamy layer principles did not apply to consequential seniority under Article 16(4A); the State&#039;s data assessment attracted limited judicial review, and retrospective protection of seniority was not arbitrary.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2021 08:28:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=659117" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (5) TMI 1908 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298248</link>
      <description>The Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation Act, 2018 was upheld because it addressed the earlier invalidity through expert-committee data on backwardness, inadequate representation and administrative efficiency. A validating law may operate retrospectively where it removes the defect underlying prior invalidation rather than merely overriding a judicial decision. Reservation of the Bill for presidential consideration was permissible where constitutional doubt existed, and presidential assent was not subject to judicial scrutiny. Creamy layer principles did not apply to consequential seniority under Article 16(4A); the State&#039;s data assessment attracted limited judicial review, and retrospective protection of seniority was not arbitrary.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298248</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>