Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1253 1998 SLD 1253 1998 PLC 153
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 19 of 1997, decision dated: 16-04-1997. (On appeal from the judgment of High Court dated 18-3-1997, in Writ Petition No. 208 of 1996).
BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH AND MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, JJ

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

Qazi LIAQAT ALI QURESHI

VS

Hafiz MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE and 3 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Shariat Court (Qazi Branch) Service Rules, 1990-------Sched., Serial No. 1---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 42---Post of Tehsil Qazi---Two contenders for such post--­Entitlement---Appellant, admittedly securing first position for such post reserved for specified district---Respondent who had secured second position securing order from Prime Minister for his own appointment---High Court maintained that appellant was not academically qualified for appointment as Tehsil Qazi---Validity---Sanad, Shahadat-ul-Almiyya Fil Uloomil Arabia Wal Islamia' obtained by appellant was equivalent to M.A. Arabic/Islamic Studies---Similarly Sanad of respondent was also equivalent to M.A Arabic/Islamic Studies---Appellant, however, having topped merit list would have preferential right to be appointed as Tehsil Qazi, instead of respondent who had obtained second position---Order of High Court whereby appellant was deemed not to be qualified for the post was set aside and direction was issued for appointment of appellant as Tehsil Qazi. 1996 SCR 161; 1992 SCR 214; PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 102 and Syed Muhammad Akram Shah v. Chairman, Allotment Committee etc. Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1995 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.I.R. 10---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 42---Two contenders for post of Tehsil Qazi---Non-joinder of necessary party---Effect---Appellant having stood first as per merit list was not appointed while respondent securing second position was appointed--­Both candidates filing Constitutional petitions---Appellant based his claim on having topped the list of selected candidates---Respondent challenged appellant's top position on ground that he did not possess academic qualifications---Respondent's Constitutional petition was accepted and it was found by High Court that appellant did not possess requisite qualification--­Appellant's Constitutional petition was dismissed---Validity---Appellant's objection, that respondent who was contesting (appellant's) first position having failed to array 'Selection Committee' as party to Constitutional petition was not…
🔒
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