Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 351 2018 SLD 351 2018 PLJ 1
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
C.A. No. 101 of 2016, decision & hearing Date : 14.6.2017. (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court Dated 22-01-2016 in W.P. No. 123/2012)
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, ACJ, GHULAM MUSTAFA MUGHAL, JUSTICE
Raja Khalid Mehmood Khan, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. Muhammad Khalil Ghazi, Advocate for
Respondents.

ABDUL GHAFOOR, SUPERVISOR GRADEA, AKLASC, MIRPUR

VS

CHAIRMAN BOARD OF DIRECTOR, AKLASC, MUZAFFARABAD AND 9 OTHERS

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Law: Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)

Section: 87

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (10 of 1984), Art. 87--High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, R. 32(2)--Employee--Appointment and promotion--Certified copies--Non furnishing of--Admission of documents--Maintainability--Held: High Court have admitted documents relied upon by appellant and no objection was raised by them, therefore, in such scenario no violation of Rule 32(2) was made. 2002 SCR 315, ref. JUDGMENT Raja Saeed Akram Khan, ACJ.--The titled appeal by leave of the Court has been addressed against the judgment of the High Court dated 22.01.2016, whereby, the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, and another has been dismissed. 2. The summary of the facts is that the appellant, herein, and another filed a writ petition before the High Court alleging therein that they being qualified as B.A. with one year Diploma of Kashmir Forest School (KFS) was inducted into the service of Azad Kashmir Logging and Sawmills Corporation (AKLASC) as Supervisor Grade-B (BPS-10) on 10.06.1986 and were promoted as Supervisor Grade-A (BPS-13) on 17.12.2003. It was stated that Respondents No. 4 to 6, herein, were inducted in the service of the AKLASC department as Supervisor (BPS-10) and directly promoted in BPS-16 who are most junior to the appellant, herein, against the Departmental Rules, whereas, respondents Ho.7 and 8, therein, were promoted on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness by ignoring the qualification criterion, which was essential for promotion of Sub-Manager Sales (BPS-16). It was craved that the impugned orders passed by Respondents No. 1 to 3 dated 25.03.2008, 26.04.2008, 14.03.2009, 20.10.2011 and 25.10.2011 may be set-aside and the petitioners may be ordered to be promoted accordingly. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing. The written statement was filed on behalf of private-respondents, whereby, the claim of the appellant was repudiated in toto. The learned High Court after necessary proceedings dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the same has not been filed in compliance with the Rule 32 (2) of the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984, read with Article 87 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984,…
🔒
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