<?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>1991 (9) TMI 372 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309072</link>
    <description>A later statutory scheme under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Regional Selection Boards Act, 1982 displaced the earlier Regulation 20 process, so vacancies required to be notified to the Commission could not be treated as surrendered for want of fresh sanction. On that basis, cancellation of approval for ad hoc appointments on short-term vacancies was held unsustainable. The text also states that the withdrawal of approval was vitiated by breach of natural justice because affected teachers were not shown to have received effective notice or hearing. It further says the order could not be upheld on fresh grounds not recorded by the District Inspector of Schools, and the cancellation was set aside with consequential benefit to the appointees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2023 17:25:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=722154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (9) TMI 372 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309072</link>
      <description>A later statutory scheme under the U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and Regional Selection Boards Act, 1982 displaced the earlier Regulation 20 process, so vacancies required to be notified to the Commission could not be treated as surrendered for want of fresh sanction. On that basis, cancellation of approval for ad hoc appointments on short-term vacancies was held unsustainable. The text also states that the withdrawal of approval was vitiated by breach of natural justice because affected teachers were not shown to have received effective notice or hearing. It further says the order could not be upheld on fresh grounds not recorded by the District Inspector of Schools, and the cancellation was set aside with consequential benefit to the appointees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Sep 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309072</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>