https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304177 The court affirmed that the policy in effect at the time of considering the application for compassionate appointment applies. The petitioner's claim was rejected as his elder brother was already in a government job, rendering him ineligible under the policy. The court clarified that the principle of res judicata did not apply as there was no final adjudication of rights, and the principle of prospective overruling was not invoked. The rejection of the petitioner's application based on the policy in effect at the time of consideration was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the petition. en-us Thu, 24 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Sep 2022 08:15:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304177 The court affirmed that the policy in effect at the time of considering the application for compassionate appointment applies. The petitioner's claim was rejected as his elder brother was already in a government job, rendering him ineligible under the policy. The court clarified that the principle of res judicata did not apply as there was no final adjudication of rights, and the principle of prospective overruling was not invoked. The rejection of the petitioner's application based on the policy in effect at the time of consideration was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the petition. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304177