<?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>1981 (11) TMI 200 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460696</link>
    <description>In a reconstituted State health service, inter se seniority of absorbed specialists was governed by the express seniority formula in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules, not by the date of entry into the predecessor Central Health Service. The Court also indicated that the promotion exercise of 3.11.1979, including the Departmental Promotion Committee process and use of annual confidential reports, required reconsideration in light of the corrected seniority position and the rules. It further upheld starting the promotion roster with Specialists, holding that a procedural gap in the roster arrangement could be supplemented consistently with the enabling rule.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 18:30:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=796899" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (11) TMI 200 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460696</link>
      <description>In a reconstituted State health service, inter se seniority of absorbed specialists was governed by the express seniority formula in the Himachal Pradesh Health Service Rules, not by the date of entry into the predecessor Central Health Service. The Court also indicated that the promotion exercise of 3.11.1979, including the Departmental Promotion Committee process and use of annual confidential reports, required reconsideration in light of the corrected seniority position and the rules. It further upheld starting the promotion roster with Specialists, holding that a procedural gap in the roster arrangement could be supplemented consistently with the enabling rule.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=460696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>