<?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>2008 (5) TMI 85 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30654</link>
    <description>Under the Customs Appraisers&#039; Service, Class II Recruitment Rules, 1961, seniority was linked to the statutory recruitment structure rather than a rigid application of continuous officiation or the quota-rota principle. The Rules distinguished cadre strength from vacancies, and the Board could regulate recruitment by source, vacancies and service exigencies, subject to the minimum that direct recruitment comprise at least 50% of the cadre. In the absence of a fixed quota for promotees, the quota-rota principle could not be mechanically applied against them, and ad hoc appointees could not claim seniority over regular direct recruits. The seniority list prepared by the authorities was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69309" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 85 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30654</link>
      <description>Under the Customs Appraisers&#039; Service, Class II Recruitment Rules, 1961, seniority was linked to the statutory recruitment structure rather than a rigid application of continuous officiation or the quota-rota principle. The Rules distinguished cadre strength from vacancies, and the Board could regulate recruitment by source, vacancies and service exigencies, subject to the minimum that direct recruitment comprise at least 50% of the cadre. In the absence of a fixed quota for promotees, the quota-rota principle could not be mechanically applied against them, and ad hoc appointees could not claim seniority over regular direct recruits. The seniority list prepared by the authorities was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30654</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>