<?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>2025 (1) TMI 1654 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464738</link>
    <description>A special executive recruitment order for the Kerala Medical Education Service was treated as the governing rule for promotion to Associate Professor because no framed recruitment rules existed. The order did not expressly require five years&#039; physical teaching experience to be acquired only after the postgraduate qualification, and that omission was held intentional; the general Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules could not add such a condition where the special order controlled the field. The note on promotion for want of qualified candidates was also held inapplicable because qualified candidates were available. The promotion was therefore upheld and the contrary High Court view set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 13:57:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=864024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (1) TMI 1654 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464738</link>
      <description>A special executive recruitment order for the Kerala Medical Education Service was treated as the governing rule for promotion to Associate Professor because no framed recruitment rules existed. The order did not expressly require five years&#039; physical teaching experience to be acquired only after the postgraduate qualification, and that omission was held intentional; the general Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules could not add such a condition where the special order controlled the field. The note on promotion for want of qualified candidates was also held inapplicable because qualified candidates were available. The promotion was therefore upheld and the contrary High Court view set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=464738</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>