https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306784 Rule 1(g) defined a law degree as one recognised by an Indian University and the Bar Council of India, but the proviso to Rule 6(b)(2) was treated as a limited promotional exception for specified service categories rather than a contradiction of that definition. The governing principle was that a proviso may qualify the main rule without destroying it, so it cannot negate the substantive promotional preference for B.L. degree holders. The applicable promotion rule was the one in force on the date of consideration, and pre-existing vacancies were not required to be filled under the earlier ratio in the absence of a statutory year-wise panel scheme. The 2013 ratio reversal was therefore held unsustainable, while earlier promotions were left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2023 09:04:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306784 Rule 1(g) defined a law degree as one recognised by an Indian University and the Bar Council of India, but the proviso to Rule 6(b)(2) was treated as a limited promotional exception for specified service categories rather than a contradiction of that definition. The governing principle was that a proviso may qualify the main rule without destroying it, so it cannot negate the substantive promotional preference for B.L. degree holders. The applicable promotion rule was the one in force on the date of consideration, and pre-existing vacancies were not required to be filled under the earlier ratio in the absence of a statutory year-wise panel scheme. The 2013 ratio reversal was therefore held unsustainable, while earlier promotions were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Dec 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306784