<?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>2007 (8) TMI 836 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467145</link>
    <description>An administrative tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing parts of statutory recruitment rules and prescribing substitute qualifications for promotion, rendering promotions made under that exercise unsustainable; the Tribunal lacked power to re frame or reenact statutory qualification criteria (outcome: promotions invalid). Persons affected though not parties may seek reconsideration under the tribunal&#039;s remedial jurisdiction; assistants had locus standi and the HC was correct to declare the tribunal&#039;s order unsustainable and should have set aside all promotions effected thereunder, directing a fresh promotional exercise under valid rules while protecting salaries already paid (outcome: annulment and fresh exercise ordered).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2026 14:00:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=889356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 836 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467145</link>
      <description>An administrative tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by quashing parts of statutory recruitment rules and prescribing substitute qualifications for promotion, rendering promotions made under that exercise unsustainable; the Tribunal lacked power to re frame or reenact statutory qualification criteria (outcome: promotions invalid). Persons affected though not parties may seek reconsideration under the tribunal&#039;s remedial jurisdiction; assistants had locus standi and the HC was correct to declare the tribunal&#039;s order unsustainable and should have set aside all promotions effected thereunder, directing a fresh promotional exercise under valid rules while protecting salaries already paid (outcome: annulment and fresh exercise ordered).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467145</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>