| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 860 2019 SLD 860 2019 PLC 355 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 265 of 2017, decision Dated: 18-01-2018. Date of hearing: 13-12-2017. (On appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Dated 04.07.2017 in Service Appeal No. 09 of 2011).
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Barrister Humayun Nawaz Khan, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Sardar Javed Naz Khan, Additional Advocate General and Syed Sarosh Gillani, Advocate
Civil Appeal No. 265 of 2017, decision Dated: 18-01-2018. Date of hearing: 13-12-2017. (On appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Dated 04.07.2017 in Service Appeal No. 09 of 2011).
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Barrister Humayun Nawaz Khan, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Sardar Javed Naz Khan, Additional Advocate General and Syed Sarosh Gillani, Advocate
QADEER HUSSAIN
VS
THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY/CHIEF JUSTICE OF HIGH COURT/HIGH COURT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH REGISTRAR AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Service Tribunals Act, 2016
Section: 6
(a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Judicial Service Rules, 1999--- ----Service Tribunal---Jurisdiction---Scope---Superintendent in the subordinate judiciary---Promotion as Civil Judge---Selection Board, opinion of---Scope---Seniority---Determination of---Procedure---Respondent being superintendent in the subordinate judiciary was promoted as Civil Judge against the departmental promotion quota---Appellant filed appeal that he was senior and more experienced than the respondent---Service Tribunal observed that nothing was available on record to show as to why the Selection Board ignored the appellant for promotion as Civil Judge however opinion of Selection Board could not be substituted and dismissed the appeal---Validity---When Service Tribunal had reached to the conclusion that there was no reason for ignoring the appellant for promotion, it should have accepted the appeal and cured the illegality committed by the Authority---Service Tribunal on appeal might confirm, set aside, vary or modify the order appealed against---If order appealed was found issued on the recommendations made arbitrarily by the Selection Board, Service Tribunal was empowered to set aside, vary or modify the said order---When Service Tribunal came to the conclusion that employee had been superseded without any justification then mere recommendations made by the Selection Board were not hurdle in the way of Service Tribunal to perform its legal duty---Civil servant had vested right to approach the proper forum for redressal of grievances---When any Court or Tribunal was of the opinion that some illegality or perversity was found in the order impugned before it, said Court or Tribunal was bound to cure such illegality or perversity---Findings recorded by the Service Tribunal were against the spirit of law which could not be upheld---Post of Civil Judge was sensitive in character in the judicial system and selection against such post in an arbitrary manner was alarming for the cause of administration of justice---Appellant and respondent were promoted in BS-16 with effect from 27-02-2002---Appellant before his promotion was working as Senior Scale Stenographer, BS-15, whereas private respondent…
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