Case Details

Citation(s)
2011 SLG 1650 2011 SLD 1650 2011 PLC 337
High Court (AJ&K)
Writ Petition No.347 of 2009, decision dated: 4-11-2010.
GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, CJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Syed RASHID HUSSAIN SHAH

VS

AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 6 others vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 6 others

Law:

Section:

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act (XXII of 1975)------S. 4---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Ss.44 & 47---Promotion---Claim for---Jurisdiction of High Court under S.44, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, 1974---Scope---Maintainability of---Petitioner had challenged promotion of respondents for being unlawful, discriminatory, arbitrary, fanciful, whimsical, mala fide and without lawful authority---Counsel for the respondents had raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition and argued that grievance voiced through the petition related to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner and for that purpose proper forum was Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal; and that jurisdiction of High Court was barred under S.47 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974---Validity---Writ jurisdiction was conferred upon High Court by S.44 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 and the ouster of jurisdiction could be claimed only within the parameters; limitations and restrictions placed by the said Act---Jurisdiction of High Court was barred only in respect of those matters for which Special Tribunal, possessed the jurisdiction, otherwise, ouster of jurisdiction could not be claimed in routine---Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal was qualified and conditional; under S.4 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, 1975 an appeal was competent against a final order, therefore it could not be assumed that every order relating to the terms and conditions of service was appealable before the Service Tribunal---Writ of mandamus and prohibition, could not be issued by the Service Tribunal; party who sought intervention of High Court for issuance of writ of mandamus and prohibition, could not be refused such relief on the ground that matter could be agitated before the Service Tribunal after completion of the alleged illegal act---Name of the petitioner, had not been included in the working paper which was sent to the respective Selection Board for consideration of promotion---No occasion, in circumstances was left for the petitioner for challenging the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492