<?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>Promotion to Associate Professor in the Kerala Medical Education Service did not require five years&#039; teaching experience obtained after acquiring a postgraduate qualification because the governing executive order for the teaching cadre did not impose that condition. Its express inclusion for the separate administrative cadre showed that the omission for teaching posts was intentional. Rule 10(ab) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules did not displace the special executive order and yielded where experience was otherwise specified. Rule 28(b)(1A) was inapplicable because qualified candidates were available. The High Court&#039;s contrary view was set aside, and dismissal of the original applications was restored.</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>Promotion to Associate Professor in the Kerala Medical Education Service did not require five years&#039; teaching experience obtained after acquiring a postgraduate qualification because the governing executive order for the teaching cadre did not impose that condition. Its express inclusion for the separate administrative cadre showed that the omission for teaching posts was intentional. Rule 10(ab) of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules did not displace the special executive order and yielded where experience was otherwise specified. Rule 28(b)(1A) was inapplicable because qualified candidates were available. The High Court&#039;s contrary view was set aside, and dismissal of the original applications was restored.</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>