Case Details

Citation(s)
2001 SLG 1837 2001 SLD 1837 2001 PLC 256
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No.202 of 1998, decision dated: 12-03-2000.
SARDAR SAID MUHAMMAD KHAN, C.J. AND BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, 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

TANVEER AHMAD

VS

ROSHAN DIN and 2 others

Law:

Section:

Civil service--------Appointment---Civil servant despite being more educated than the opposing civil servant, was ignored and opposing civil servant was appointed, by the Authority under instructions from some unspecified Authority, without advertising the post---Post against which the appointment was made, was not one of the posts which were advertised, but it fell vacant due to promotion of civil servant working on the said post---Post in question having not been advertised which was a mandatory requirement of law, and such mandatory requirement of law having not been fulfilled, appointment was declared to be illegal---Authority was directed to advertise post and to fill the same in accordance with law. Abdul Rashid Tarrabi v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and others Civil Appeal No. 169 of 1998. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 15th February, 1999. JUDGMENT BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---The appellant, Tanveer Ahmed, filed writ petition in the High Court to challenge the appointment of respondent No.3 Roshan Din as a temporary Junior Clerk (BPS-5) in Girls High School Leepa. The appointment was made on 6th August, 1996 by the District Education Officer under instructions from some unspecified authority. It was challenged on 30th December, 1996 by the appellant by filing a writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed on 8th September, 1998. This appeal has been filed by leave of the Court to challenge the judgment of the High Court. 2. The averments made in the writ petition were that both Tanveer Ahmed and Roshan Din belong to Leepa. Tanveer Ahmed was FA (Second Division) at the relevant time anti has also appeared in the B.A. Examination while Roshan Din was a Matriculate. Tanveer Ahmed applied to the Prime Minister and also to the Minister of Education who issued instructions for his appointment but Roshan Din was appointed. The appointment was made without advertising the post. It was a fundamental right of the writ petitioner that the post should have been advertised and test and interview should have been held for selection on merit. Roshan Din was wrongly…
🔒
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