<?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>2007 (5) TMI 682 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302368</link>
    <description>A post qualifies as a feeder post for promotion into a forest cadre only if its duties, qualifications and statutory recognition show a genuine connection with forestry; mere parity in pay or earlier inclusion in a schedule is insufficient. On that basis, the post of Assistant Mill Manager was treated as a technical milling post, not equivalent to Assistant Conservator of Forests and not eligible for consideration for promotion to Deputy Conservator of Forests. The document also states that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reappreciate the case on merits; the Tribunal exceeded that limit, so its review order could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 May 2022 12:22:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=679831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 682 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302368</link>
      <description>A post qualifies as a feeder post for promotion into a forest cadre only if its duties, qualifications and statutory recognition show a genuine connection with forestry; mere parity in pay or earlier inclusion in a schedule is insufficient. On that basis, the post of Assistant Mill Manager was treated as a technical milling post, not equivalent to Assistant Conservator of Forests and not eligible for consideration for promotion to Deputy Conservator of Forests. The document also states that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reappreciate the case on merits; the Tribunal exceeded that limit, so its review order could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>