Civil Service

  1. Order — Notification — Amendment — Locus poenitentiae — Respondents had locus poenitentiae to amend the notification whereby only those civil servants were given benefit to join or remain in service who had preferred appeals against notification. Muhammad Anwar Khan v. AJK Govt. and 2 others 1998 SCR 19 (A)
  2. It is celebrated rule of civil service that no post can be created, filled in or regulated without the rules. AJ&K Government & 2 others v. Zeshan Arif & another 2009 SCR 127 (A)
  3. A person who himself abandons a claim and reconciles with the situation, cannot come to the Court by reopening the matter again. M. Riaz Khan v. IG of Police and 19 others 2010 SCR 131 (B)
  4. See Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42 (12). Muhammad Irshad Khan v. Public Service Commission, AJ&K 2012 SCR 92
  5. See Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 47. Sardar Khurshid Hussain, Deputy Inspector v. Azad Government of the State of J&K 2012 SCR 23
  6. Appointment/promotion — The comparative merit determined by the authority cannot be substituted by the Courts. Mrs. Shaheen Ashai v. Muhammad Anwar Chaudhry & 5 others 2014 SCR 1169 (E) PLD 2008 SC 769 rel.
  7. Notification dated 24th August, 1972 — refugee settled in Azad Jammu & Kashmir — Entitlement to apply for the post in civil service — Father of the appellant after migration settled in Kahuta Haveli — in the light of notification dated 24.8.1972, he is permanent resident of the said District — Held: He cannot be treated as refugee settled in Pakistan — Further held: He is not entitled to apply against the post reserved for refugees settled in Pakistan. Tariq Javaid v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 653 (E)
  8. Posting as Officer on special duty (OSD) — A civil servant may remain posted as OSD for a period of not more than 30 days — The period of appellant as OSD is more than six months — Held: Keeping a civil servant out of the post for such a long period, is arbitrary and colourable exercise of powers by the authority. Muhammad Ilyas Abbasi v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 1133 (R)  2009 PLC (C.S) 953 rel.
  9. Placing civil servants as OSD — The period of a civil servant as OSD should not beyond 30 days — The opinion of Queta High Court in the case reported as 2000 PLC (C.S) 533 endorsed by the Court. Muhammad Ilyas Abbasi v. Azad Govt. & others 2015 SCR 1133 (S)
  10. Entries in Service Book — presumption of — Held: mere entries in the Service Book does not entitle any person to be declared as permanent employee. The service book is usually maintained by the clerical staff of the concerned department and entries made therein cannot be regarded to be authentic in absence of the fundamental documents — only service book cannot be given much weight without any fundamental documentary proof. AJK Govt. & 2 others v. Mehr–un–Nisa & 5 others 2016 SCR 594 (A) 2015 SCR 1083 rel. 
  11. —Recruitment of—No candidate has a vested right to be governed by any particular set of Rules. Amir Shameem & 23 others v. Azad Government & 11 others 2017 SCR 684 (C)  2002 SCMR 772, PLD 2003 SC 143 & 1990 SCMR 1524 ref.
  12. — Polluted selection cannot be protected in exercise of writ jurisdiction— The appellants have not placed with the written statement any merit list on the basis of which it could be ascertained that they have attained the merit position in the test and interview, High Court had afforded an opportunity for producing the merit list but despite availing the same, the Divisional Director Schools Poonch Division failed to produce the same before the Court. In absence of the merit list High Court has rightly proceeded to decide the case in accordance with the High Court Procedure Rules, 1984 on the basis of available record. this Court, also summoned the record for the ends of justice and the Divisional Director Schools has furnished the same which was not a merit list rather it was a list of the female candidates for the test and interview of the Junior Arabic Teachers—Held: such a polluted selection cannot be protected in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Zohara Rani & another v. Kalsoom Bibi & others 2017 SCR 1124 (A)
  13. —The appointments should be made without considering any political or external pressure purely on merit— The right of service is a Constitutionally guaranteed right has a close nexus with the right of security of persons which includes the right to life and profession— The policy of pick and chose of the candidates has created frustration among the youth as a class. The target of good governance cannot be achieved unless and until the selection process is not fair, free and transparent. Through various pronouncements of the superior Courts, it has been directed that the appointments should be made without considering any political or external pressure purely on merit. Zohara Rani & another v. Kalsoom Bibi & others 2017 SCR 1124 (B) 1997 SCMR 1043, rel.
  14. —Allegation—That appointment has been made by political intervention—proof of—Held: that the several opportunities were availed by the official respondents for filing written statement but they deliberately did not file the same.  This shows the malafide on their part and the allegations levelled in the writ petitions against the official respondents, particularly/political intervention in the making of the appointments of the appellants is proved. Zohara Rani & another v. Kalsoom Bibi & others 2017 SCR    1124 (C)
  15.  —transfer and posting of a civil servant—out of his cadre–a civil servant though is liable to be transferred and posted on any post but he cannot be compelled to perform duty for which he is not                                                         meant and appointed. Mst. Shakeela Tamraiz v.Secretary Population Welfare & 7 others 2020 SCR 322 (A)
  16.  —transfer and posting of a civil servant out of his cadre—a civil servant cannot be compelled to serve out of his cadre—such type of transfer cannot be considered to have been made in public interest. Mst. Shakeela Tamraiz v.Secretary Population Welfare & 7 others 2020 SCR 322 (B) 2006 SCMR 1380 ref
  17. —departmental representation/appeal—finding of the Service Tribunal that the appellant did not file appeal against the original order—Held: the Service Tribunal rejected the appeal of the appellant on wrong assumption of facts and law. It was not necessary to challenge the order dated 08.04.2016, because it was in favour of the appellant, and the selection board was not to decided or promote a candidate from a particular date. It was the prerogative of the authority to assign a particular date for promotion. That is why after recommendations a separate application/representation was filed by the appellant for notifying his promotion from date of his officiating appointment i.e., 31.07.2008. The appellant, had only to challenge the order of the Chief Executive dated 28.06.2016, partly, whereby, his review/representation was rejected. Ch. Muhammad Ayub V. Competent Authority & 10 others
  18. 2020 SCR 758 (B
  19. —It is well settled that no post can be advertised in vacuum without framing of Rules. Shahbaz Khan v. Managing Director & others 2022 SCR 260 (A)
  20. —Experience in relevant field—meaning of— post of research/planning officer, in the Planning and Development Department— departmental Rules, prescribes required qualification as master degree along with two years experience in relevant field—the respondent had teaching experience of relevant field—the words used in Rules are ambiguous—whether regarding the post of research/planning officer or on the basis of basic/required qualification—Policy decision of the Public Service Commission, removed ambiguity—Held: for direct appointment to a post the candidate must have experience as a postgraduate and if the departmental rules are silent about it, then only the experience gained by candidate after graduation will be recognized. Furthermore, for technical positions only the experience acquired by the candidate after obtaining the required academic qualification/degree for appointment to a post will be accepted. We are definitely in view that after obtaining the relevant degree any experience gained on the basis of said degree shall be construed as experience. Naeem Arif Mughal v. AJ&K P.S.C & others  2022 SCR 1008 (A)
  21. —Civil service—experience in relevant field—whether experience of teaching in relevant field falls into required ‘experience in relevant field—Court determined that experience of teaching in relevant field/discipline after gaining required degree falls into relevant experience— the policy decision of the PSC explains and considers enhancement in academic qualification as relevant experience, whereas respondent has experience of teaching ( تدریس ) in Statistics, and teaching of relevant discipline confers more experience and knowledge than mere further education. Therefore, we are unanimous that the policy decision is very much clear and removes ambiguity regarding ‘relevant experience’. The experience of lecturer Statistics has rightly been included in the experience gained by respondent No. 4, therefore the PSC has right treated the experience of teaching (تدریس ) as lecturer Statistics as the experience for the post of Planning Officer on the ground that the basic qualification for the post of Research Officer/Planning Officer is master degree in statistics. Naeem Arif Mughal v. AJ&K P.S.C & others  2022 SCR 1008 (B)
  22. — various matters are to be considered in Service hierarchy such as powers, administration and control of institution and the privileges etc. Fahad Ibrar & another v. Azad Government & 4 others  2022 SCR 1163 (J) 1999 SCR 305 rel.
  23. — appointment of — no post can be filled without compiling the rules.Dr. Faheem Ahmed Chaudhary versus Waqas Nasar & others 2023 SCR 963 (A) 2009 SCR 127 rel.
  24. —manner of appointment in civil service — concerned (appointing) authority cannot deviate from the prescribed qualification or eligibility as provided under service rules except if law permits as such. Kanwal Shahzadi vs Muhammad Naeem & others 2024 SCR 348 (F) 2015 SCR 367 ref.
  25.  —The manner and structure of civil service and terms and conditions of civil servants are provided and regulated under Article 49 of AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974, AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976, various Rules and departmental rules framed under section 23 of the AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976 — Kanwal Shahzadi vs Muhammad Naeem & others 2024 SCR 348 (B)
error: Content is protected !!