Case Details

Citation(s)
1996 SLD 789 = 1996 CLC 1551
High Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No.&of 1996, decided on 13th March, 1996 (On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 1-1996, in Writ Petition No.94 of 1995).
Presented By: Present: Basharat Ahmad Shaikh and Muhammad Yunus Surakhvi, JJ
Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, Advocate for Appellant. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, Advocate for
Respondent No. 1. Ch. Muhammad Yusuf, Advocate-General for
Respondent No.5.

ATTAULLAH ATTA---Appellant

VERSUS

GHULAM   BASHIR   MUGHAL   and   5 others---Respondents

Law:

Section:

  Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subjects Rules, 1980--- ----8. 7---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 42---Constitutional petition---Appeal to Supreme Court---Posts of Assistant Commissioners and Assistant Superintendents of Police---Reserved seat for District ' M'---Both. appellant and respondents being candidates, appellant was selected on the reserved seat while respondent having secured, 2nd position could not be recommended---High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction declared recommendation of Public Service Commission to be bad in law on the ground that Domicile Certificate                was                false                ---Validity--Maintainability/competency of Constitutional petition was assailed on the ground that departmental remedies being available respondent had not availed those remedies, therefore, Constitutional petition was not maintainable before the High Court and decision of High, Court on that basis could not be maintained---Respondent had explained in ' his Constitutional petition that Departmental remedies were not efficacious in the circumstances of the case for considerable time would be consumed in obtaining the decision from relevant Authorities with the result that recommendations  of  Public  Service  Commission  would   become "redundant" ---Respondents' further explanation that apart from challenging domicile certificate, recommendations of Public Service Commission had also been challenged which was only within the competence of High  Court,  and  was  validly  accepted  by  that Court---Reasons advanced by High Court that the domicile certificate obtained by appellant was false and that appellant had never been-a resident of Azad Jammu and Kashmir were weighty and adequate-- Dispute about domicile certificate and appointment based thereon were interwoven…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register