<?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>1990 (11) TMI 428 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302084</link>
    <description>Ad hoc promotions against substantive vacancies do not create seniority from the initial date of promotion when the recruitment rules require substantive appointment within the prescribed quota and procedure. Continuous officiating in the same post, by itself, cannot regularise an appointment made dehors the rules, and only service rendered after a valid appointment in accordance with the statutory scheme counts for inter se seniority. The rule power to relax service conditions cannot be used to bypass the basic recruitment requirements, and no deemed relaxation was justified on the facts. Seniority therefore had to be fixed only from valid substantive appointment under the rules.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2026 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=678106" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (11) TMI 428 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302084</link>
      <description>Ad hoc promotions against substantive vacancies do not create seniority from the initial date of promotion when the recruitment rules require substantive appointment within the prescribed quota and procedure. Continuous officiating in the same post, by itself, cannot regularise an appointment made dehors the rules, and only service rendered after a valid appointment in accordance with the statutory scheme counts for inter se seniority. The rule power to relax service conditions cannot be used to bypass the basic recruitment requirements, and no deemed relaxation was justified on the facts. Seniority therefore had to be fixed only from valid substantive appointment under the rules.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>