- Appointment to the post of Junior Clerk — contention that post was created by the struggle of respondent therefore he is entitled to be appointed as a matter of right — Held: the rules and regulations do not permit the authority to make any appointment without following the prescribed procedure of law, even Prime Minister does not have any powers to relax the rules or regulations just to accommodate a person of his own choice. Any appointment which has been made without following the prescribed procedure of law shall be illegal and the same cannot be protected even by the Legislative Assembly. Syed Shabir Shah Gillani v. Imtiaz Ahmed Abasi & 5 others 2014 SCR 418 (A) 2010 SCR 264 ref.
- —transparency in—in era of unemployment only one out of four applicants, appeared—very strange fact— it is also very strange that all concerned stated that despite advertisement and submission of four applications only one candidate appeared. It is impossible. Everybody know that due to unemployment the people seeking job are running from pillar to post so how it is possible that only one candidate appeared in the test and interview. The whole story clearly speaks that the proceedings have not been conducted in a transparent manner rather these are totally fishy and doubtful. Muhammad Matloob v. Iftikhar Ahmed & others 2017 SCR 282 (H)
- —direction to Secretary of Department—take necessary steps—for transparency and strict compliance of law—We deem it necessary in the public interest to direct the Secretary of the Department to take necessary steps for transparency of proceedings conducted while making appointments and strict compliance of law. Muhammad Matloob v. Iftikhar Ahmed & others 2017 SCR 282 (I)
- —Held: appointment order should be strictly issued in accordance with law and rules and there is a complete mechanism in law for appointment which must be followed and carried out and the appointment made in contravention of the rules cannot be declared legal. Syed Muzahir Hussain & others v. Commissioner Revenue & others 2022 SCR 1073 (B)
- —Regularization of appointments in civil service— in AJK the appointments in the civil service are regularized by law known as the Azad Jammu Kashmir civil servants act 1976 and their rules made thereunder. Amjad Hussain v. Khuram Nawaz Rathore & others 2022 SCR 1153 (A)
- —AJK Interim Constitution, 1974—equality before law and equal protection of law—Held: Constitution guarantees the right—but right can only be enforced by following the prescribed mode of appointment by advertising the vacancies and determination of the merit of the eligible candidates through transparent selection process. Amjad Hussain v. Khuram Nawaz Rathore & others 2022 SCR 1153 (F)
- —appointments in civil service to be made strictly in a transparent and competitive manner—no exception may be made thereto—the appointments should be made in the transparent manner. As per principle of law, appointments in the public services ought to be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the Rules, 1977 for the post. Fahad Ibrar & another v. Azad Government & 4 others 2022 SCR 1163 (H)
- —appointment in civil service—exceptions to prescribed mode of appointment—made in interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. Fahad Ibrar & another v. Azad Government & 4 others 2022 SCR 1163 (I) 2017 SCR 282 rel.
- —equality before law and equal treatment by law—appoints to be made only through prescribed mode— The AJK Interim Constitution, 1974, has guaranteed the right of equality before law and equal treatment by 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. Fahad Ibrar & another v. Azad Government & 4 others 2022 SCR 1163 (W)
- —direction to authorities—Held: it is duty of competent authority to consider the merit of all the eligible candidates while putting them in juxtaposition to find out the meritorious amongst them otherwise one of the organ of the State, i.e., executive could not sustain as independent organ. Fahad Ibrar & another v. Azad Government & 4 others 2022 SCR 1163 (DD)
- — purpose of — criterion for — Government Departments are established to run the affairs of Govt. in the interest of citizens — primary objective of a Govt. is and must be public interest — a job in a Govt. department is primarily created to improve the functioning of Govt. machinery rather than to provide employment — the employment can be a secondary benefit if the job is awarded on merit to the most qualified and deserving candidate — It is essential & mandatory to fill every permanent post by providing equal opportunity to all eligible State Subjects and determining merit under law — once a regular permanent position is created, it can only be filled in by following the prescribed procedure —Raj Muhammad v. Azad Govt. & others 2023 SCR 30 (C,D&E)
- Appointment in Government/ Public Service — — concept & mode of — in a world where corruption nepotism etc. are still rampant, the right to be served by best chosen officials becomes more imperative — the candidates must be selected for positions based on merit — it helps in creating an environment of trust & respect of people in the institutions — this becomes more important in the present world of democracy where masses are expected to have faith in and leave their rights to be safeguarded by the Govt. and its institutions. Prof. Dr. Rehmat Ali Khan v. Dr. Syed Dilnawaz Ahmed Gardezi & others 2023 SCR 39 (G) Surah Al-Nisa verse No. 58 ref.
- — procedure of — induction in police force — advertisement contains a proviso “آسامیوں کی تعداد میں کمی بیشی ہو سکتی ہے” — Court held: this condition raises doubt about the circumstances surrounding the advertisement — the exhaustive, examination of entire Civil Service Code and Police Rules did not yield any provision that may justify the inclusion of such a proviso in the advertisement — the rationale behind this condition remains unclear as it is not discernible from the available record — fact cannot be denied that there may have been some positions vacant at the time of advertisement and it appears that these positions intentionally left unadvertised as is evident by the inclusion of proviso reflecting a potential malicious intent — such practice should come to an end. Home Department & 05 others versus Aqib Farooq & 22 others 2023 SCR 1200 (H & I)
error: Content is protected !!