AJK Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules 1977

  1. R. 3(2) — AJK Council notification of 2nd  May 1994 — Promotion of Inspector in B-14 of Exercise and Tax Department — Qualification for —- Inspector in B-14 will be eligible for promotion if he has rendered 5 years service and has passed the departmental examination — Notification does not lay down the condition of obtaining 50% marks for promotion. Abdul Latif v. Secretary AJK Council & 4 others 1998 SCR 50 (A)
  2. Rules 3(4) & (5) — Quota system introduced on 16th March 1971 — Reservation on basis of quota is mandatory in nature and negates other view that it is rule of convenience — All concerned functionaries bound to implement them — Inconsistent orders will be a serious illegality. Umar Hayat v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 1999 SCR 243 (B)
  3. — Rules 3 & 17 — manner of initial appointments in civil service — initial appointments to all posts shall be made after advertisement of the vacancy in the newspapers. Kanwal Shahzadi vs Muhammad Naeem & others 2024 SCR 348 (E)
  4. R. 7 clearly stipulates that a person appointed to a post or grade against a substantive vacancy shall be on probation for two years if appointed by initial recruitment — Irrespective of what is entered in his order of appointment, he shall be deemed to be on probation for two years. Khalid Ashraf  v.  Azad Govt. & 2 others 1999 SCR 463 (B)
  5. R. 7-A — Postulates that on receipt of report of the Inquiry Officer the Authorised Officer shall determine whether the charges have been proved — If he is of opinion that charges have been proved and he proposes minor penalty then he shall seek explanation from accused and decide the matter — If the proposes major penalty then case shall be referred to the Authority. Muhammad Naseem Khanth v. Azad Government & 6 others 2009 SCR 613 (A)
  6. R. 8 — It does not fall within the ambit of Service Tribunal and it is only the competent authority under rules which can make such a promotion from specifidate. Azad Government v. Zia-ul-Din Ahmed 1993 SCR 151 (C)
  7. U/r. 8 — A person cannot be given seniority from the date on which he was not in service. Muhammad Ahsan v. Manzoor Ali Khokhar and another 1999 SCR 163 (A)
  8. Rule 8 — The seniority of a civil servant at the time of his induction in service is based on the order of merit drawn by the P.S.C. — Therefore the prayer relating to the Government is consequential in nature which would follow if the notification carried out by the P.S.C. is found to be without lawful authority — Appeal accepted. Munir Qadir v. Chairman P.S.C. 2000 SCR 456 (C)
  9. R. 8 — If authority proposes to impose major penalty the accused shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard in person — The accused can explain his position if copies of inquiry report and other documents are supplied to him — But when explanation is sought without record, he cannot explain his case — It is the requirement of rule that copy of inquiry report has to be supplied to the accused. M. Naseem Khanth v. Azad Govt. 2009 SCR 613 (B) PLD 1981 SC 176, 2006 SCR 107 and 1982 PLC (CS) 76 & 270 rel   
  10. R. 8 — While determining the seniority it should be kept in sight that the person who is selected earlier shall be senior to the person selected later. Mushtaq Ahmad v. Khawaja Ejaz Ahmed & 4 others 2009 SCR 537 (A)
  11. Rule 8 — Inter se seniority — Both the appellant and respondent No.1 were appointed on one and the same date — Admittedly the respondent is older in age and also appointed by promotion — Rule 8 of the AJ&K Civil Servants (Appointment and conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 clearly lays down that in case of inter se seniority of direct appointees and promotees, the promotee shall rank senior — Held: Even otherwise if the respondent is not treated as promotee, he ranks senior because of older in age. Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. M. Basher & 5 others 2010 SCR 208 (B)
  12. Rules 8 — Interse seniority in a functional unit — Shall be determined on the ground that the persons selected for appointment to the grade in an earlier selection shall rank senior to the persons selected in the later selection and in the case of persons appointed otherwise with reference to dates of their continuous appointment in the grade. Held; Interse seniority can be common between only those civil servants who are serving in one functional unit and the seniority of persons serving in different functional units cannot be common with other functional unit of the department. Mst. Mehreen Gillani v. Muhammad Shamoon Hashmi & 8 others 2011 SCR 315 (A)
  13. —Rule 8—AJ&K Police Service (Composition and Cadre) Rules, 1983—Rule  4(2)—promotion to the rank of Superintendent of Police—seniority—determination of—under rule 8, in case of continuous appointment of two or more persons in the same grade, the older shall rank senior to the younger—in the next below rank, the seniority of the contestants was not common, they were serving in different cadres—they were entered in the same scale on 18.08.2015—Held: seniority shall take effect from the said date. Irfan Saleem & another v. Mir M. Abid & 12 others 2020 SCR 845 (B)
  14. —Rule 8—AJ&K Management Group (Composition, Recruitment and Promotion) Rules, 1980—rule 9—seniority interse—Appellants selected on merit against the post of their respective units—Respondent could not be selected against his respective unit rather against the post of another unit—issue of seniority— Juxtapose appreciation of rule 8 of Rules 1977 and rule 9 of Rules, 1980— The phraseology applied in clause (a) of sub rule (1) of rule 9 of Rules, 1980 that “the members appointed by initial recruitment” has to be appreciated in juxtapose with clause (a) of sub rule (1) of rule 8, which speaks that the person selected for appointment to grade in earlier selection shall rank senior to a person selected later on— The words “selection for appointment” are of basic importance— vacancies are advertised and filled in on quota system— a candidate for appointment against the advertised post has not only to qualify the test and interview in general but also  to obtain merit position for the vacancy of his respective unit— Respondent could not be selected for the post reserved for his home district — he was not selected for appointment alongwith the seven other candidates in earlier selection and he was subsequently selected against the quota of refugees of 1989 on the direction of the High Court—Held: the selection for appointment of the other seven candidates and the respondent cannot be treated as one and the same, rather the selection for appointment of the seven candidates is earlier whereas respondent shall be deemed selected for appointment later. Sohail Azam & others v. Abrar Azam & others 2017 SCR 718 (A) —Rule 8— In case of continuous appointment of two or more persons in the same grade the older shall rank senior to the younger. Kamran Ali & 3 others Versus Abdul Qudoos & 9 others 2021 SCR 501(E)
  15. Rule 8 — seniority determination of — according to proviso to clause (2), subrule 1 of Rule 8, the person selected for appointment to a grade in earlier selection shall rank senior to the person selected later on — the word “selection for appointment” is of basic importance — a candidate has not only to qualify the test and interview in general but also has to obtain merit position for vacancy falling in the quota of his respective unit — respondent could not be selected against the post reserved for his district — he was not selected for appointment along with other candidates in earlier selection rather he was selected subsequently against the post reserved for other unit — held: the selection for appointment of appellant, proforma-respondent & respondent cannot be treated as one and the same — respondent shall be deemed selected for appointment later on. Usman Ali Zaib vs Nisar Ahmed & others 2024 SCR 179 (A)
  16. — Rule 8 — seniority — determination of — held: mere selection by selection authority is not a condition but selection for appointment is a condition — sometimes, a candidate may be holding higher position in general order of merit but could not succeed to be selected for appointment against the vacancy according to unit wise quota and a candidate holding lower position in general merit, may succeed to be selected for appointment against the post reserved for respective unit — as the vacancies have to be filled in on the basis of quota system, thus, mere general order of the merit is not a sole criterion but the selection for appointment amongst the candidates on merit with reference to vacancies falling in the quota reserved for their respective units is a relevant factor. Usman Ali Zaib vs Nisar Ahmed & others 2024 SCR 179 (B)
  17. 8(1) — Seniority among the incumbents appointed through initial recruitment and those appointed otherwise shall be determined with reference to the date of continuous appointment to higher grade — Candidates who have been selected for appointment in an earlier selection obviously shall rank senior to the persons selected in a later selection. Muhammad Farid Shahzad v. Azad Govt. & 11 others 2009 SCR 143 (B)
  18. —Rule 8(1)(a)—inter-se seniority-to be determined-in order of merit-assigned by selection authority-under rule 8(1)(a) of the Rules, 1977, the inter-se seniority of persons appointed by initial recruitment in the same grade shall be determined in accordance with the order of merit, assigned by the selection authority. In the explanation clause of the Rule(supra), it has been provided that in case a group of person is selected for initial appointment at one time, the earliest date on which anyone out of the group joined the service will be deemed to the date of appointment of all persons in the group. AJK Government  & 2 others v. Syeda Sabeen Gillani & others 2017 SCR 950 (A)
  19. R. 8 (2) — Seniority of persons appointed by initial recruitment to the grade vis-à-vis  those appointed otherwise shall be determined with reference to the grade. Muhammad Farid Shahzad v. Azad Govt. & 11 others 2009 SCR 143 (C)
  20. R. 8 (2) — Provides that seniority of persons appointed initial recruitment to the grade vis-à-vis to those appointed otherwise shall be determined with reference to the date of continuous appointment to the grade — S. 7(2) of Civil Servants Act, deals with seniority into grade to which a civil servant is promoted from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade. Asad Mahmood Malik  v. AJ&K Govt. & 4 others 2009 SCR 129 (E)
  21. Rule 8(1)(A) — Fixed pay in a grade — If a civil servant is granted  minimum of a given grade without the right to earn increments of that grade it cannot be said that he has been appointed to that grade — It only means that he has been given fixed pay — It will not be deemed that he has entered the grade — His “appointment in the grade”, within the meaning of the rule reproduced above will begin when he start getting the increments — Thus, the seniority will be counted from the date when he is awarded the running scale, not  from the date he started receiving the fixed pay. Ejaz Ahmad Awan & 5 others v. Manzoor Ali Shah & another 1999 SCR 204 (D)
  22. R. 8(1)-B  Explanation II — If a person junior in a lower grade is promoted to higher grade by superseding his senior and subsequently the latter is also promoted, the promoted first shall rank senior to the one promoted subsequently. Muhammad Ilyas Khan and 5 others v. Muhammad Hafeez Khan and 4 others 2001 SCR 179 (A)
  23. R. 8 (1) (B) — Explanation 111 — A junior appointed to a higher grade shall be deemed to have superseded his senior only if both the junior and senior were considered for the higher grade and the junior was appointed in preference to senior. Azad Govt. v. Zia-ul-Din Ah. 1993 SCR 151 (A)
  24. R. 8(B) — Selection authority can assign the merit only in cases of promotion — Case remanded. Muhammad Yunus v. Azad  Govt 1992 SCR 340 (A)
  25. Rule 8 (B) — If the date of continuous appointment in the case of two or more persons appointed to the grade is the same the elder, if not junior to younger in the next below grade, shall rank senior to the younger person in accordance with this rule. Azad Govt. v. Zia-ul-Din Ahmed 1993 SCR 151 (B)
  26. Rule 9 — Case of appellant was never sent to the Selection Board along with other eligible candidates for recommendations —- Nor the Minister Incharge had approved any such recommendations. An illegal exercise of jurisdiction by Divisional Director Schools has not vested any legal right to the appellant — Service Tribunal summoned the record but no such record was available with Education Department — In view of service laws in force in AJ&K the promotion order without recommendations  of Selection Board or Selection Committee is illegal and confers no right on the promotee — Under rule 9 of the Rules of 1977  it has been made obligatory to make appointment by promotion or transfer to posts in various grades upon the recommendations of the appropriate Committee or Board — Held: As the suitability of the appellant was not judged the whole process initiated by Divisional Director Schools did not confer any right upon her. Rafiya Latif v. Secretary Education & another 2003 SCR 264 (A)
  27. R. 9 (1) — Appointment on current charge basis against permanent post — The appointment of appellant on current charge basis against the post of Director Land Records was bad in law — He is occupying the post against the spirit of law. After the period of six months, he could not hold the post. Sheikh khaleel Ahmed v. Dr. Ahsan Khalid & 6 others 2005 SCR 219 (A)
  28. — Rule 9(1)— the bare reading of the rules showsthat the appointment shall be considered from the date of recommendations of Selection Board/ Committee. Amjad Ali Khan Minhas v. Zahid Mehmood Khan & 3 others 2017 SCR 514 (A) 2003 SCR 264 rel.
  29. In case of officiating or acting charge basis the senior is to be given preference — Rules 9 & 10 — Appointment by promotion or transfer is also to be made to the higher post on the basis of recommendations of Selection Board — Post of Principal Degree College being selection grade post could not have been filled in by any other method except by promotion on the recommendations of Selection Board or by direct recruitment. Akbar Khatoon v. Farhat Khizar & 2 others 1999 SCR 305 (B)
  30. R.10-A — Promotion on acting charge basis is not a regular promotion — Nor does it create a right for regular promotion/appointment. Muhammad Farid Shahzad v. Azad Govt. & 11 others 2009 SCR 143 (A) PLJ 2000 SC (AJK) 88 rel.
  31. R.10-A, sub-rule (4) — Provides that no appointment on acting charge basis shall be made without the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee or AJ&K Selection Board — Such appointment shall not be deemed to have been made on regular basis for any purpose nor shall confer any right for regular appointment. Abdul Qayyum Durrani v. Legislative Assembly & 4 others 2007 SCR 250 (A)
  32. Rule 10-B — Appointment on current charge basis is not a promotion and it is only for a period of six months. Zahida Mahmood v. Muhammad Sabir Khan and 5 others 2000 SCR 78 (A)
  33. Rule 10-B — It is a fact of elementary knowledge that appointment on current charge basis is not a promotion — The actual position is that “appointment on current charge basis” and the “promotion” are distinctly different in every sense — Pay scale is not mentioned in Rule 10-B — It is clear that appointment on current charge basis is to a higher post and to a higher grade—Sub-rule(2) makes it clear that appointment made under this rule is a temporary arrangement which terminates on appointment of a person on regular basis or on the expiry of six months whichever is earlier — Sub-rule (2)also shows that appointment on regular basis is a stage which is reached after appointment on current charge basis and the two are not the same — R-13-Appointment on officiating basis is a promotion, but the word promotion is conspicuous by absence from rule 10-B — The obvious conclusion is that appointment on current charge basis is not promotion. Shabir Kayani v. Mushtaq Ahmad Gardazi and 4 others 2000 SCR 557 (C)
  34. Rule 10-B — the High Court fell in error that respondent was promoted against the disputed post — The High Court itself noted that the respondent has been appointed on current charge basis but failed to note that appointment on current charge basis but failed to note that appointment on current charge basis is not a promotion and is only a stop-gap arrangement — The appointment on current charge basis is not made on recommendation of Selection Board but is only an appointment till the appointment of a person on regular basis or on expiry of six months whichever is earlier — It follows from the above that the disputed post of Assistant Electric Inspector was vacant for all practical purposes — The appointment of appellant on current charge basis created no hurdle in  appointment on regular basis of a person to be selected by the Selection authority. Muhammad Imtiaz Khan v. AJK Govt. & 3 others 2001 SCR 115 (C)
  35. Rule 10-B — current-charge appointment — appointment on current charge basis is made when a post is likely to remain vacant for a period of less than 6 months and appointing authority doesn’t consider it expedient to make an appointment on ad hoc basis, it may appoint a civil servant, who is eligible for promotion under rules. Muhammad Yaqoob Awan  v. Secretary Electricity Dept. & 3 others 2014 SCR 1 (A)
  36. —Rule 10-B— appointment on current-charge basis — can be made when a post is likely to remain vacant for a period of less than 6 months and appointing authority doesn’t consider it expedient to make an appointment on ad-hoc basis— a civil servant, who is eligible for promotion may be appointed on current-charge basis. Muhammad Tufail Mir & 6 others v. Secretary Electricity Deptt. & others 2017 SCR 35 (G)
  37. Rules 10-B and 13 — Current charge appointment and officiating promotion — appointment on current charge basis is not a promotion — promotion on officiating basis is made when a post falls vacant as a result of deputation, leave or the appointment on acting charge basis of the regular incumbent or is reserved under the rules to be filled in by transfer and a person possessing the qualification and experience prescribed for the post, can be appointed by the authority after approval of Chairman of respective Selection Committee. Muhammad Yaqoob Awan v. Secretary Electricity Dept. & 3 others 2014 SCR 1 (D)
  38. Rule 13 — promotion on officiating basis — if post  falls vacant as a result of deputation, leave etc. — no person shall be promoted on officiating basis unless he possess the qualification and experience prescribed for the post — officiating promotion confers no right for promotion on regular basis — officiating promotion is terminated as soon as person becomes available for promotion on regular basis.  M. Yaqoob Awan  v. Secretary Electricity Dept. 2014 SCR 1 (B)   
  39. —Rule 13— Appointment by— promotion on officiating basis— where a post falls vacant as a result of (ex-cadre) transfer, deputation, leave or appointment on acting charge/officiating basis of the regular incumbent or is reserved under the rules to be filled by transfer or is permanently available as vacant and is reserved for regular promotion on the recommendations of the appropriate selection board/committee, the appointing authority may make appointment by promotion against such post on officiating basis. Muhammad Tufail Mir & 6 others v. Secretary Electricity Deptt. & others 2017 SCR 35 (H) 2014 SCR 1, rel.
  40. R. 13 (3) — Promotion on officiating basis — Does not confer any right for regular appointment or promotion. Asad Mahmood Malik v. AJ&K Govt. & 4 others 2009 SCR 129 (A)   
  41. R. 13(3) — See AJK Interim Constitution Act, 1974, S. 42. Yasir Maqbool, Junior P.E.T., Govt. Boys High School, Musa Khairian, Muzaffarabad v. Shahid Hameed, P.E.T., Govt. Boys High School Musa Khairian, Muzaffarabad and 5 others 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 1015 (B)
  42. Rule 13(3) — officiating promotion shall not confer any right of promotion on regular basis. Muhammad Yaqoob Awan v. Secretary Electricity Dept. & 3 others 2014 SCR 1 (E)
  43. Civil Servants Act does not in any way lay down that appointment to the service of Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be made through the Public Service Commission Act on merits — It only lays that the appointment may be made in the prescribed manner — However there are rules made under the Civil Servants Act known as the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules — Rule 16 lays down that initial appointment to the posts in grade 16 and above except those which do not fall under the purview of the Commission under P.S.C.  (Functions) Rules or which are specified to be filled without reference to the Commission shall be made on the basis of examination or test conducted by the Commission — This rule reflects the law laid down in P.S.C. Act and the Rules made thereunder. Azad Government v. Muhammad Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (FF)    
  44. R. 16 — See Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act (VI of 1976), S. 2(1)(B)(ii) Zafar Iqbal v. Secretary Education of AJ&K (Colleges), Muzaffarabad Azad Kashmir 2012 SCR 378
  45. Advertising a post is a provision contained in rule 17 — Advertising a post is the basis on which merit system stands — If this condition is not complied with there can be no appointment on merit — If a post is not advertised the appointment made even if based on recommendation of a Selection Board shall be void. Secretary For Prime Minister and 3 others v. Muhammad Aslam and 5 others 2000 SCR 263 (A)
  46. Rule 17 — Advertisement of posts — Objections were that firstly posts were not advertised secondly that recommendations of the Selection Committee had no legal value because Selection Committee has to make choice from amongst the candidates who filed applications in response to advertisement thirdly that appointments had been made to do favours to the appointees — Held: that rules have been violated and judgments of superior Courts overlooked. D.G. Health Services v. Muhammad Tariq Aziz and 2 others 2000 SCR 256 (A)
  47. Rule 17 — No notice was necessary to the appellant because he was appointed two days after the creation of the post in question without complying rule 17 of the Rules — The un-reported case of Muhammad Arshad referred in this case, could not be interpreted to mean that no advertisement is necessary under rule 17 — In the said case the advertisement was made other otherwise than advertising the post in the newspaper as is permitted in the said rule. Muhammad Aftab Khan v. District Education Officer & 2 others 2000 SCR 431 (B)
  48. Chapter III — Rule 17 — Requirements are that to fill in a vacant post the vacancy has to be advertised in newspapers — Appointments have to be made on the basis of examination or test to be held by the appropriate Committee or the Board — Advertising a post is a mandatory requirement — If it is not complied with any proceedings taken by the Selection Board are void — Rule ensures that people will be appointed to Govt. service on the basis of merits and open competition — If a post is not advertised all proceedings  for selection are coram non judice. Manzoor Ahmad v. Muhammad Sabbir and 2 others 2000 SCR 500 (C)
  49. R 17 — All posts in B-1 and above have to be advertised in newspapers — This is a mandatory requirement — Appointment made in violation of this rule cannot be protected under law — Posts were not advertised, as required by rule 17, the recommendations made by any Selection Committee & Appointments made are of no consequence — The appointments of private respondents by promotion against such up-graded posts are illegal and cannot be maintained — This fact has not been brought to the notice of the Court as to whether these posts were created earlier under the approval of controlling authority or were subsequently created by the Chairperson subject to the approval of the Board — Appellants are directed to fill these posts strictly in accordance with law and rules applicable. AJ&K Board of Intermediate & Secondary v. Abdur Rauf Khan & 11 others 2002 SCR 139 (A)
  50. R. 17 — It is unfortunate that after the enforcement of Rules 1977 an arbitrary practice is still being followed by the departments of the Govt. — Without advertising the posts persons are inducted subject to confirmation by the departmental Selection Committee — Whereas R. 17 is mandatory — Therefore after the enforcement of these Rules no post can be filled in without advertising the same — Both the contesting parties have been inducted in service without advertising the posts on the orders of the Forest Minister — This arbitrary and unguided procedure adapted by the Forests Deptt. shows that persons on the helm of affairs are not giving much importance to the law of land.Muhammad Ayub vs. Chief Conservator of Forests and 4 others 2002 SCR 537 (A)
  51. R. 17 — Initial appointment on all the post in grade 1 and above shall be made through test held by appropriate committee — after advertising the posts in newspapers or any manner to be determined by the Government — If the post is not advertised the appointment made on the recommendation of Selection Committee or Selection Board shall be invalid. Shahzad Abdul Hussain v. Chief Conservator of Forests & 5 others 2008 SCR 512 (A)
  52. Rule 17 — under rule 17, all the appointments in B-1 and above through initial appointment shall be made on the basis of examination or test to be held by the appropriate Committee or the Board after advertising the vacancies and appointments have to be made under the prescribed rules. Held: Any appointment order made without framing the rules, without advertising the post and without conducting the test and interview by the appropriate Selection Committee or Board is against the law and not maintainable. Molvi Abdul Latif Qari & 366 others v. Azad Govt. & 43 others  2014 SCR 1104 (B) 2002 SCR 263, 2002 SCR 139 & 2008 SCR 512, rel.
  53. Rule 17 — when two posts are advertised, appointment orders of three persons cannot be made. Divisional Dorector Schools & 4 others v. Syeda Fardous Naqvi & 2 others 2016 SCR 1253 (B) PLJ 2013 SC (AJ&K) 83, 2014 SCR 479 & 2014 SCR 1022 rel.
  54. Rule,17 — firstly the post has to be advertised and in the result of test and interview any person can be appointed — appointment order was made against fourth post, whereas the available posts were three — Held: the appointment order was against the clear statutory provisions, and was not maintainable. Divisional Dorector Schools v. Syeda Fardous Naqvi 2016 SCR 1253 (C)
  55. —Rule 17—No appointment order can be passed without advertising the post. Amjad Ali Khokhar v. Chief Engineer & 3 others 2017 SCR 87 (B) 1999 SCR 435 and 2002 SCR 537 ref.
  56. —Rule 17—departmental Service Rules provides that the posts are liable to be filled in through initial recruitment—no other mode is provided—held: it is binding obligation of the official respondents to advertise the post and fill the same as per law.  Arslan Iqbal & 2 others Versus  Muhammad Shabir & 6 others 2021 SCR 403 (B) 2000 SCR 263 ref.
  57. —Rule 17— initial appointment to all posts in grades 1 and above except those filled under Rule 16, shall be made on the basis of examination or test by the appropriate Committee or Board after advertisement of the vacancies in newspapers, or in the manner to be determined by the Govt. Qadeer Ahmed Versus Azad Govt. & 6 others 2021 SCR 682 (B) 1999 SCR 43 rel.
  58. —Rule 17, AJK Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977—mode of appointment in AJK civil service has been prescribed in rule 17 of AJK Civil Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. Amjad Hussain v. Khuram Nawaz Rathore & others  2022 SCR 1153 (B)
  59. —Rule 17, AJK Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977—mode of appointments on vacant/newly created posts—Selection Committee, not authorized to recommend candidates from waiting list—under rule 17 appointments on the post shall be made after advertising of the vacancies in the newspaper and holding examination/test and no such provision is available in law which provides selection committee to recommend the waiting candidate to be appointed on the newly created/vacant post. Amjad Hussain v. Khuram Nawaz Rathore & others  2022 SCR 1153 (C)
  60. — rule 17 — contingent paid employee — post shifted on normal budget — writ — claim for pension as permanent civil servant — under Rule 17, initial appointment shall be made on the basis of selection process held by appropriate Committee/ Board, after advertisement of vacancies in newspaper or in the manner to be determined by the Govt. — Held: process of selection prescribed by law not adopted, hence, mere on the shifting of the post on normal budget, appellant cannot claim himself as permanent civil servant. Raj Muhammad v. Azad Govt. & others 2023 SCR 30 (A &B) PLJ 2013 SC(AJ&K) 140 ref
  61. —Rule 17 and 23, AJK Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977—object and wisdom behind both provisions—to provide fair competition to candidates in transparent, open and competitive manner— the spirit behind rules 17 and 23 of the rules 1977, is to provide fair competition to the contestants for each and every post required to be filled in public departments. This court has laid down in plethora of judge pronouncements that the appointment against the civil post in service of Azad Jammu and Kashmir can only be made in accordance with the prescribed mode on the basis of merit determined through transparent, open and competitive method. Amjad Hussain v. Khuram Nawaz Rathore & others  2022 SCR 1153 (E)
  62. Rules 17 & 23 (1) — These provisions show that a post or vacancy has to exist before it is advertised — These provisions do not visualise that applications may be invited without there being a vacancy or post — Held: it was illegal to fill in the posts created in December — Advertisement, application and interviews already conducted before the creation of new vacancies — The posts should be available before they are advertised. Azad Govt. v. Haji Mir M. Naseer  2000 SCR 109 (H)
  63. Rules 17 & 23(1) — post or vacancy has to exist before it is advertised — appointment order made without advertisement and without availability of posts is not maintainable. Divisional Dorector Schools v. Syeda Fardous Naqvi 2016 SCR 1253 (A) 2000 SCR 109 & 2000 SCR 120, rel.
  64. The Government of AJK u/s 22 of the Act can deal with the case of any civil servant in such manner as may appear to be just and equitable while under rule 24 of the Rules, the Government may for special reasons relax any of the rules. A. Shakoor v. Mrs. Shamim Khalid 2003 SCR 351 (A)
  65. Section 23 — Method of ad hoc appointment — Ad hoc appointment not a bounty — to be made in public interest for a limited period of six months and is to be made on the basis of open merit — It is clearly spelt out that ad hoc appointment can only be made:- (i)    the vacancy is advertised, (ii)    a duly qualified person is appointed, (iii)    selection is made on the basis of merit, (iv)    appointment order certifies that the requisition has been sent to the selection authority (v)    the appointment is made subject to revocation at any time. A large number of orders put on record do not contain any such certificate that the requisition has been sent to the selection authority in violation of rule 23, these also do not show that any selection was made on the basis of merit — Held: Ad hoc appointments were not made on the basis of merit and secondly requisition was not sent to the P.S.C. when the appointments were made. Azad Government v. Muhammad Youns Tahir & other 1994 SCR 341 (W)
  66. Rule 23 — This rule provides that even the ad hoc appointment is to be made in the interest of public and for a limited period of 6 months and must be made on the basis of merit and the same can only be made after requisition has been sent to the P.S.C. — The first step to be taken in this regard is to forward a requisition to the selection authority and then under sub-rule (4) the appointment order should contain a certificate that a requisition has been sent to the selection authority. Further observed that time and again despite the observations of this Court, ad hoc appointments are made in flagrant violation of law and contumacious disregard of the relevant rules — Further observed that in future the Govt. must ensure that even the ad hoc appointments are made strictly in conformity with the relevant rules and any departure or deviation from the relevant provisions of law would tantamount to perpetuating a grave injustice to those candidates who have the requisite qualifications but unfortunately have no political backing or background — Indeed the discretion for making ad hoc appointments vests with the Govt. but the discretion must be exercised in accordance with the provisions of the relevant rules or law and it must appear to be just and equitable. Dr. Mehmood Hussain Kiyani v. Azad Govt. & 26 others 1996 SCR 165 (C)
  67. S.23 — Ad hoc appointment — If subsequent orders of ad hoc appointments of the pro-forma respondents were made without complying the conditions laid down in rule 23 of the Rules 1977, such subsequent orders will also be of on legal consequence. — The order of ad hoc appointment cannot be issued as a matter of routine after expiry of six months, the same can be done only if it is necessitated by the circumstance or it is in public interest and that to after sending the requisition to the P.S.C. as envisaged under rule 23. Azad Govt. v. Israr Hussain Mughal1996 SCR 278 (A)
  68. Rule 23 — If the appointment against a vacancy is illegal then obviously the incumbent of the post would be a usurper and the post would be deemed to be vacant, especially so when the order of ad hoc appointment is mechanically repeated indefinitely after period of six months without complying the conditions laid down in rule 23. Azad Govt. v. Israr H.Mughal 1996 SCR 278 (C)
  69. Rule 23 — Ad-hoc appointments — Regularization without adopting proper procedure — Effect of — If the ad-hoc appointment is made in strict compliance of Rule, 23 of Rules 1977, such appointment could not create any right for permanent or regular appointment — Appointments in the service are regularized by Azad Jammu and Kashmir civil servants Act, 1976 and the Rules made there under — The spirit of law is that the appointments should be made on the basis of merit determined by the concerned selection authorities — The Interim Constitution Act has guaranteed the right of equality before law and equal treatment of law, thus, this right can only be enforced by following the prescribed mode of appointment by advertising the vacancies and determination of merit of the eligible candidates through transparent selection process — Law does not admit any such tactics that any person, who has been appointed on ad-hoc basis and thereafter for one or the other reason continued such for an indefinite period and then becomes entitled for the permanent induction. Held:  Such induction through back door, infect, amounts to violation of constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of equality before law and the enforced law regulating the mode of appointment — Such a practice is not only the violation of law and fundamental rights but also at the end of the day may result into inefficiency, maladministration and also be a main cause of generating the corruption. Mst. Tanveer Ashraf  v. AJ&K Govt. & 2 others 2011 SCR 528 (A) 
  70. Rule 23, sub clauses 1 to 4 of Sub-Rule 2 — Advertisement of vacancies — Selection on merit — Under sub-clauses 1 to 4 of sub-rule 2 of rule 23 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir civil servants (Appointment and conditions of service) Rules, 1977 — The first and foremost requirement of proper procedure is the advertisement of vacancy and selection made on the basis of merit determined by the objective criteria. Mst. Tanveer Ashraf  v. AJ&K Govt. 2011 SCR 528 (B)      
  71. R. 23 — Scheme for ad-hoc appointment — Rule — The rule postulates that whenever the post becomes vacant and is required to be filled in, the appointing authority shall found the requisition to the selection authority for conducting the test and interview and after forwarding the requisition to the selection authority, if the appointing authority is of the opinion, that it is necessary and in the public interest to fill in the post on ad-hoc basis, the authority may appoint a person for a period not exceeding six months — The rule postulates that the vacancy shall be advertised; a person duly qualified shall be appointed in accordance with the provision of rules and orders applicable to the post and; the selection will be made on the basis of merit determined by the objective criteria — It is further provided in the proviso to rule that ad-hoc appointment shall not confer any right on the person so appointed in the matter of regular appointment — Thus, if an order of ad-hoc appointment is issued without complying the requirement statutory provision as embodied in said Rule, and the same is mechanically repeated after expiry of six months period, it will not be a valid appointment — If appointment against a vacancy is illegal, then obviously, the incumbent of the post would be a usurper — The ad-hoc appointment mechanically repeated indefinitely after a period of six months without complying the conditions laid down in said Rule would be no valid appointment in the eyes of law. Munawar Ahmed v. Azad Govt. of the state of J&K 2013 SCR 280 (A)
  72. R. 23 — Scheme for ad-hoc appointment — Rule — Petitioner was appointed as ad-hoc-Lecturer — Grievance made out was that respondents wanted to terminate the petitioner’s, ad-hoc service, he, therefore, sought a direction to refrain respondents from terminating, removing or dismissing petitioner from the post — High Court dismissed writ petition on ground that ad-hoc appointee could be removed from service at any time even without notice — Impugned order — Education Department, evidently,    inspite of clear directions by apex Court in a number of cases, was acting in an arbitrary manner — Ad-hoc appointment orders passed in favour of petitioner appeared to be against clear legal provision — Petitioner remained serving as Lecturer in said College during the period when no valid order of ad-hoc appointment was in existence — That was clearly against rules — Impugned order passed by High Court was perfectly legal — Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed by Supreme Court. AD-HOC APPOINTEE — (Relief) [High Court had dismissed writ petition on ground that ad-hoc appointee can be removed from service at any time even without notice. Supreme Court dismissed appeal]. Munawar Ahmed v. Azad Govt. of the state of J&K 2013 SCR (SC AJ&K) 280 (B)
  73. R.23––Adhoc/Temporary appointments—regularization of—claim that selection was made on temporary basis— after due process of selection by selection committee against the post of scheme—thus, they are entitled to be confirmed against the post shifted on normal budget on the strength of earlier selection—Government regularized/confirmed appointments against the post of normal budget—Rule 23 does not give any power to the Government to regularize the temporary/adhoc appointments on the strength of the selection process conducted for appointments against the temporary posts— Government was not legally authorised to regularise the appointments without adopting due procedure of law. Bashir Ahmed & others vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 195 (A &C) 1994 SCR 34, 2013 SCR 150 & PLJ 2013 SC (AJK) 140
  74. —Rule 23, AJK Civil Servants (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977— requisition to fill up vacant/newly created post—Selection Committee is not authorized to recommend candidates falling in the waiting list, for an appointment whenever the post falls vacant— Rule 23(1) of the Rules, 1977, also postulates that when a post is required to be filled, the appointing authority shall forward a requisition to the selection authority immediately after the decision is taken to fill the post, meaning thereby that the requisition of every new/vacant post shall be sent to the selection committee/bored, which after conducting test and interview recommend suitable candidate and the selection committee is not authorized to itself determine and prepare the waiting list and recommend for his/ her appointment whenever the post falls vacant. Amjad Hussain v. Khuram Nawaz Rathore & others  2022 SCR 1153 (D)
  75. No cogent reasons shown — ex-parte order maintained and respondent not allowed to file concise statement.  Muhammad Yunus v. Azad  Govt. 1992 SCR 340 (B)
  76. Any law inconsistent with the Public Service Commission Act and rules made thereunder is not a valid law  — Any change in functions of the P.S.C. can be brought about by amending the Public Service Commission Act and Rules or by amending the Interim Constitution Act — Thus the Regularisation Act is invalid on this ground. Azad Govt. v. M. Youns Tahir 1994 SCR 341 (GG)
  77. Ad hoc appointment — An ad hoc appointment validly made would be effective only for six months, unless, of course, the concerned ad hoc appointee is re-appointed as such after complying with conditions laid down in that behalf. Miss Azra Hafiz & 10 others v. Israr Hussain Mughal 1996 SCR 211(A)
  78. Civil servant — Removal from service — High Court ordered re-instatement of respondent (civil servant) on the ground that order of removal was passed without giving opportunity of hearing — High Court had  rightly quashed the order by which services of respondent were terminated — Serious allegations in aforesaid order had been levelled against respondent that there was tampering in record due to which respondent was also able to get himself absorbed in service on regular basis and was also able to secure his promotion — Such allegation being of serious nature, would have the effect of attaching permanent stigma — It is well settled that such a finding cannot be given behind the back of a person who is accused of such an act — Thus the respondent was condemned unheard which is not permissible in law — Therefore  his termination order has been rightly quashed by the High Court —However the High Court has restored the respondent to service with benefits but has not allowed the competent authority to proceed in the matter afresh — This cannot approved because there is serious allegations like tampering of record it becomes necessary that the matter should be properly investigated and a person accused of such behaviour cannot be allowed to escape on technical grounds — Appeal is therefore partly accepted in order to allow the competent authority to proceed in the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to respondent — Competent authority will be free to proceed against respondent by giving him opportunity of hearing. Azad Government and 4 others v. Muhammad Siddique Haideri 2000 SCR 554 (A)
  79. A post can be advertised only after a vacancy has arisen and not otherwise — If two posts were advertised only two appointments could be made — Third person included in the merit list could be validly appointed against that post. Tanveer Ahmad  v.  Roshan Din 2000 SCR 120 (A)
  80. Rules 1977 were made on 8th May 1977, while AKLASC Employees Service Rules were subsequently framed on 28th June 1977 — Dates have not been contested — Held: High Court was clearly in error in holding that advertising a post under the Corporation was not a legal requirement. Shaheen Asad v. Azfar Yaseen and 4 others 2000 SCR 308 (D)
  81. Ad hoc appointment are dealt with in part IV — It is well settled that any appointment made without fulfilling the conditions mentioned in Part IV is illegal — Appointment of the appellant was made without fulfilling the aforesaid conditions, which had been rightly set aside by the High Court — Appeal dismissed declaring the post as vacant. Naeem Feroze  v. Iqbal Rashid Minhas 2001 SCR 91 (A)
  82. An illegal practice come to our notice that mandatory provisions are being violated — A direction was issued to the Secretary and the Chief Conservator of Forests to ensure that in future this practice is not repeated — The Chief Conservator of Forests shall pass appropriate order in respect of such employees who were inducted without advertisement of posts and without determination of merit by the concerned Selection Committee — In case any appointment is found contrary to rules the Secretary Forests and the Chief Conservator of Forests shall follow the process of law. Muhammad Ayub v. Chief Conservator of Forests and 4 others 2002 SCR 537 (C)   
  83. Question, whether a Tehsil Qazi would be a civil servant for the purpose of seeking appointment as civil Judge B-17 notwithstanding the fact that he is a civil servant for the purpose of his service as Tehsil Mufti and Tehsil Qazi — So far as his induction for another service is conserned, can he be treated a civil servant  — Held: For this purpose was not a civil servant and the Government could not make any relaxation in this regard. Abdul Shakoor  v. Mrs. Shamim Khalid and 5 others 2003 SCR 351 (B) 1995 SCR 162,  PLD 1997 SC 382 rel.
  84. Promotion — The holder of a post on ad hoc basis, officiating basis or work charge basis cannot be considered for further promotion until and unless such officer is appointed against the post he is holding on regular basis. Syed Zawar Hussain naqvi v. Registrar of AJ&K University and 6 others 2006 SCR 15 (A) PLJ 2000 SC(AJK) 79, 1993 SCR 70 relied.
  85. Both the incumbents were selected for appointment on same date and same order — Appointing authority determined the seniority whereby respondent No.1 was placed at serial No.2 and appellant was placed at serial No.3 — Respondent No.1 joined service on 28-9-1989 and appellant joined the service on 1-10-1989 — Held: Respondent was senior to the appellant and Service Tribunal correctly determined the seniority among the incumbents. Mushtaq Ahmad v. Khawaja Ejaz Ahmed & 4 others 2009 SCR 537 (B)
  86. Promotion on officiating basis is not a promotion on regular basis. Asad Mahmood Malik  v. AJ&K Govt. & 4 others 2009 SCR 129 (B) PLJ 2000 SC (AJK) 88 rel.
  87. The Authorised Officer and Authority failed to provide the accused opportunity to explain in respect of proposed action on the basis of inquiry report — Also failed to supply copy of inquiry report to him — Order set aside. M. Naseem Khanth v. Azad Government  2009 SCR 613 (C)
  88. Whether promotion could be given retrospective effect from specific date when one of employees retired or the other was promoted and respondents were promoted from respective dates — Held: The respondent-Government promoted the respondents on officiating basis against the posts which were of direct quota and were available due to non-availability of direct recruits — Held further: It cannot be held that posts of promotion were available and respondents held those posts till regular order of appointment and promotion on 12.3.2005. Asad Mahmood Malik v. AJ&K Govt. & 4 others 2009 SCR 129 (F)
  89. A candidate for initial appointment to a post must possess the prescribed educational qualification and experience and also be within age limit as laid down for the post except the  same relaxed under rules framed for the purpose of relaxation of age limit. Abid Akram Danish Zaib & 5 others 2015 SCR732 (D)
  90. —Retrospective effect of appointment through transfer— the recommendations for the appointment of the civil servant were made by the Selection Board on 02.02.2008, Held: his permanent induction in the Law Department will be reckoned from the said date. Further held: that the retrospective effect given by the authority is against the spirit of rule 9(1) which cannot be endorsed. Amjad Ali Khan Minhas v. Zahid Mehmood Khan & 3 others 2017 SCR 514 (B)
  91.    —Held: According to the phraseology of the rules mere selection by the selection authority is not a condition but selection for appointment is a condition— the appointments are made on the basis of quota system reserved for specific units—sometime a candidate may be holding higher position in general order of merit could not succeed to be selected for appointment according to unit wise quota and a candidate who being lower in the general merit position may succeed to be selected against the post of respective unit—Held: mere general order of merit is not the sole criteria but the selection for appointment amongst the candidates on merit with reference to the vacancies falling in the quota reserved for their respective units, is also a relevant factor. Sohail Azam & others v. Abrar Azam & others 2017 SCR 718 (B)
error: Content is protected !!