<?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>1996 (7) TMI 603 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314402</link>
    <description>Appointments of teachers in aided institutions had to conform to the statutory recruitment scheme, which required selection through the Commission or Board, with ad hoc appointment allowed only where Section 18 conditions were met. The First Removal of Difficulties Order governed the ad hoc direct recruitment process by requiring notification of vacancy, public advertisement, applications and selection on quality points. The scheme was treated as an integrated procedure, so appointments made outside it were contrary to law. Ad hoc power was only temporary and could not be exercised independently of the prescribed method, and the appointments were therefore invalid and conferred no enforceable right.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2024 10:27:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 603 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314402</link>
      <description>Appointments of teachers in aided institutions had to conform to the statutory recruitment scheme, which required selection through the Commission or Board, with ad hoc appointment allowed only where Section 18 conditions were met. The First Removal of Difficulties Order governed the ad hoc direct recruitment process by requiring notification of vacancy, public advertisement, applications and selection on quality points. The scheme was treated as an integrated procedure, so appointments made outside it were contrary to law. Ad hoc power was only temporary and could not be exercised independently of the prescribed method, and the appointments were therefore invalid and conferred no enforceable right.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>