<?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>1993 (5) TMI 198 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311542</link>
    <description>Clarificatory reservation instructions are read as part of the original 1975 scheme and govern appointments made after their commencement. Under that integrated roster, point 1 was earmarked for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, point 5 for other Scheduled Castes, and the carried-forward vacancy from point 5 remained reserved for that category. A Mazhabi Sikh employee could not be placed against roster point 7, which was reserved for Scheduled Castes other than Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs; that vacancy had to be filled by the appropriate candidate, while the Mazhabi Sikh candidate could be appointed only against point 9. The document notes that he was therefore ranked below the appellant in seniority.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Jan 2024 16:15:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=738677" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (5) TMI 198 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311542</link>
      <description>Clarificatory reservation instructions are read as part of the original 1975 scheme and govern appointments made after their commencement. Under that integrated roster, point 1 was earmarked for Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs, point 5 for other Scheduled Castes, and the carried-forward vacancy from point 5 remained reserved for that category. A Mazhabi Sikh employee could not be placed against roster point 7, which was reserved for Scheduled Castes other than Balmikis and Mazhabi Sikhs; that vacancy had to be filled by the appropriate candidate, while the Mazhabi Sikh candidate could be appointed only against point 9. The document notes that he was therefore ranked below the appellant in seniority.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 May 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311542</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>