<?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>2020 (2) TMI 1743 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462283</link>
    <description>The SC dismissed appeals challenging HC&#039;s order regarding Gram Rojgar Sahayak recruitment in Rewa District, Madhya Pradesh. The Court held that the Collector&#039;s unilateral introduction of computer efficiency test was illegal and unsustainable. Candidates who participated in the test without clear notice that it was a binding selection criterion were not estopped from challenging their exclusion. The revised time schedule was merely procedural, not a recruitment notification establishing selection criteria. The HC correctly found that candidates appearing for the test could not be deemed to have accepted it as assessment criteria when the schedule indicated it was only for selected candidates and merit list toppers.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Jun 2025 22:29:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=827615" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1743 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462283</link>
      <description>The SC dismissed appeals challenging HC&#039;s order regarding Gram Rojgar Sahayak recruitment in Rewa District, Madhya Pradesh. The Court held that the Collector&#039;s unilateral introduction of computer efficiency test was illegal and unsustainable. Candidates who participated in the test without clear notice that it was a binding selection criterion were not estopped from challenging their exclusion. The revised time schedule was merely procedural, not a recruitment notification establishing selection criteria. The HC correctly found that candidates appearing for the test could not be deemed to have accepted it as assessment criteria when the schedule indicated it was only for selected candidates and merit list toppers.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462283</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>