<?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>2017 (8) TMI 1745 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461558</link>
    <description>Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules permits the Government, in rare and exceptional circumstances, to grant just and equitable relief notwithstanding the general or special rules. Its use was justified where directly recruited Assistant Sub-Inspectors could not take a prescribed test for over twelve years because it was not conducted, affecting probation, increments, seniority and promotion without employee fault. Rule 13AA concerned promotion, whereas the exemption concerned probation. The exemption from the test was treated as consistent with equality requirements under Articles 14 and 16 because it remedied injustice caused by governmental inaction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2025 16:18:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=813902" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 1745 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461558</link>
      <description>Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules permits the Government, in rare and exceptional circumstances, to grant just and equitable relief notwithstanding the general or special rules. Its use was justified where directly recruited Assistant Sub-Inspectors could not take a prescribed test for over twelve years because it was not conducted, affecting probation, increments, seniority and promotion without employee fault. Rule 13AA concerned promotion, whereas the exemption concerned probation. The exemption from the test was treated as consistent with equality requirements under Articles 14 and 16 because it remedied injustice caused by governmental inaction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>