<?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>2022 (8) TMI 1447 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310339</link>
    <description>Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules had to be read with Rule 17 as a workable scheme: the proviso on assessing suitability by total marks in the written examination applied to both the general qualifying-mark clause and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes dispensation, not to the latter alone. For the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination, the Court accepted the Commission&#039;s construction that Paper-I of the main examination was qualifying and that merit was to be assessed on the remaining written examination scheme. Where the rules and advertisement admitted two reasonable interpretations and the selection process had consistently proceeded on one of them, judicial review should not unsettle appointments already made and acted upon. The appeals succeeded and the selection was left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Oct 2023 09:38:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=729632" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 1447 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310339</link>
      <description>Rule 16 of the Recruitment Rules had to be read with Rule 17 as a workable scheme: the proviso on assessing suitability by total marks in the written examination applied to both the general qualifying-mark clause and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes dispensation, not to the latter alone. For the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination, the Court accepted the Commission&#039;s construction that Paper-I of the main examination was qualifying and that merit was to be assessed on the remaining written examination scheme. Where the rules and advertisement admitted two reasonable interpretations and the selection process had consistently proceeded on one of them, judicial review should not unsettle appointments already made and acted upon. The appeals succeeded and the selection was left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310339</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>