AJK Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994

  1. Rule 4(1)—Filing of documents after due date—a candidate has to submit complete application before the last date fixed for the purpose— documents which have been received by the Public Service Commission at the time of interview were not attached with the application, Held: the application was not complete within the meaning of rule 4(1) of the PSC (Procedure) Rules, therefore, the application was liable to be rejected or at least the experience documents furnished by the appellant would not have been considered. Imran Shafee vs Saeed Ahmed & others 2018 SCR 1230 (A) 1998 SCR 359 rel
  2.  — rule 4(2) — filing of document after due date — the applications which are incomplete or not on a prescribed form shall be rejected by the Commission. It is an admitted fact that at the time of filing of application the appellant, herein, was not in possession of the disability certificate which was subsequently issued and the same was submitted before the PSC — Held: the appellant failed to furnish the disability certificate alongwith her application, hence, as per R. 4(2) supra, her application was illegally entertained by the PSC. Sana Latif v. Mst. Sadaqat Abbasi & others 2023 SCR 182 (A) 1998 SCR 359, 2018 SCR 1230 ref.
  3. Rule 5 — This rule unequivocally confers the powers of prescribing the syllabus for various posts on the Public Service Commission. It also empowers the Commission to decide the mode of determining the eligibility which means it is the Commission which has to decide what would be syllabus for written examination and also can decide whether to hold or not a written examination for a given set of posts. Notification No.2 is clearly hit by rule 5 as the Govt. tried to exercise powers which are vested in the Public Service Commission, by ordering that the syllabus given in the order of 4th of August 1990 shall not apply to the posts mentioned in items Nos. 3 and 4 and that there will be no written examination/test for filling up those posts. Azad Jammu & Kashmir Govt. v. Javed Iqbal Khawaja & another 1996 SCR 40 (K)
  4. After promulgating rule 5 the Govt. has itself divested itself of the powers which according to its claim, vested in it. Thus the Notification No.2 is bad because it runs counter to rule 5. Azad Jammu & Kashmir Govt. v. Javed Iqbal Khawaja & another 1996 SCR 40 (M)
  5. [[—Rule 9—requisition of additional vacancies after advertisement—writ—the option lies with the Public Service Commission keeping in view the time factor, to advertise vacancies freshly or through any amendment in the previous advertisement—held: mere on the basis of availability of additional vacancies, no one can claim the appointment unless the post is advertised. Yasir Muneer  v. Azad Govt. & others2019 SCR 442 (A) 
  6. R. 10 — Marks given to respondent were rightly excluded from consideration for safeguarding the principle of providing equal opportunity of competition without any discrimination. Muhammad Ishaque Khan v. Khurshid Aziz & 3 others 1998 SCR 1 (D)
  7. It is not necessary that Chairman should be present at the time of interviews — Rule 10(1) deals with quorum of meeting where under rule 11 (1) the Chairman can constitute a Committee of the members of Commission for performing the functions of Commission. Iftikhar Ahmad Khilji v. Azad Govt. & 7 others 1999 SCR 366 (C)
  8. Rule 10(3) — Public Service Commission has a discretion to associate one or more specialists at the time of interviews for assessing the ability and suitability of candidates — It is not mandatory to do so. Muhammad Ishaque Khan v. Khurshid Aziz & 3 others 1998 SCR 1 (A)
  9. R. 12 — The Commission is bound to maintain a separate merit list for each subject — And a combined merit list also be prepared in accordance with the respective merit of each recommended candidate. Sikandar Azam v. Azad Govt. and 3 others 2009 SCR 91 (C)
  10. R. 12 — Rule 12 provides that it is the duty of the department seeking recommendations from Public Service Commission to determine the quota of each district on the basis of sanctioned strength of posts. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. M. Naseer Ch. and 2 others 2010 SCR 186 (B)
  11. R. 12 (1) — Quota fixed by the Government from time to time shall be strictly followed by the Commission. This provision upholds that quota system enforced by the Government through Orders which have been discussed in the earlier part of the judgment. It is not upto the commission to implement one part of the Order and to deviate from the other part of those Orders. Therefore the Commission has to follow the scheme of the quota system that if a suitable candidate is not found from a particular region the post will not be left unfilled but a person will be selected on merits from outside that district. Khurshid-ul-Hassan v. Azad Govt. 1996 SCR 327 (C)
  12. Rule, 13 — waiting list — its scope — when a candidate appointed against a post on the recommendations of PSC, fails to join the service or he is declared medically unfit, then the deptt. shall request the PSC to recommend the candidate for appointment next in the merit list from the waiting list prepared by PSC — the waiting list shall remain valid for 180 days from the date of selection of the candidate — the waiting list shall not be valid in case of fresh vacancy requisitioned to the Commission if the test and interview have already been conducted for the previous vacancies — PSC has jurisdiction to conduct test and interview only for the vacancies which were available at the time of advertisement and requisitioned to it by the concerned department. Held: the candidates who applied for requisitioned vacancies can only be appointed against the said posts but not against the vacancy which would become available in future. Azad Govt. & 2 others v. Muhammad Qadir Javid and another 2014 SCR 479 (C)
  13. Rule 13 — waiting list — valid for 180 days — during this period if any of the candidate fails to join the post or vacates the post for one or the other reason, then it is enjoined upon the department to request the Public Service Commission to send the recommendations of the next candidate in the waiting list — After period of 180 days no candidate can be appointed. Mst. Ambreen Khalique v. Sadia Nazir & 4 others 2016 SCR 809 (A) 2014 SCR 479 rel.
  14. —Rule 13, AJK Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994—waiting list—period of validity 180 days— Rule 13 does not apply to recruitments made by departmental Selection Committees and Boards— Held: it seems that while issuing the writ the learned High Court considered rule 13 of the AJK Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994, wherein the Public Service Commission has been required to prepare the waiting list of successful candidates and the period of validity of list has been provided 180 days. AJK Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994, does not apply to the method and manner of recruitment against the civil posts to be filled by the departmental Selection Boards and Committees. Amjad Hussain v. Khuram Nawaz Rathore & others  2022 SCR 1153 (H)
  15. —Rule 13(1), AJ&K Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994— clearly postulates that the candidate placed by the PSC in waiting list in response to the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission, can only be appointed against the post if a candidate who was appointed on the recommendations of the Commission fails to join the service or he is declared medically unfit then the department will recommend the candidate next in the merit list from the waiting list prepared by Public Service Commission. Azad Govt. & others v. Muhammad Idress & others 2022 SCR 1023 (B)
  16. Rule 13(2) — validity period of merit list — see Dept. of Higher Education & another vs Nadeem Hussain & another 2024 SCR 292 (A)
  17. R. 15 — No cavil with the power of the Commission to revise, review or formulate its laid down policy — But a candidate cannot be taken by surprise when he applied after advertisement of post — Held: Like rules itself, the policy so formulated, revised or reviewed has to be advertised in Government Gazette so that public at large, particularly the candidates who seek service through Public  Service Commission, know what is the examination policy — Commission by keeping the policy secret assumes to itself arbitrary power for revising or down grading the marks criteria for passing the examination. Sikandar Azam v. Azad Govt. and 3 others 2009 SCR 91 (B)
  18. Rule 15—Policy/ criteria for appointment—merit–determination of— MCQs test, not a sole criterion for selection on merit— the merit of the candidate has to be finally determined according to the cumulative result; for which there are three main components i.e. marks obtained in the MCQs test, marks of the academic carrier and interview—Held: no one can claim positon on merit on the sole ground of marks obtained in MCQs test. Sultan Noman Qamar v. Azad Govt. & others 2019 SCR 447 (A)
  19. These rules came into force on 5th September, 1994, which have been framed by the Government in exercise of powers vested in it under section 11 of the AJK Public Service Commission Act, 1986, whereas Notification No.2 was issued on 8th of November, 1994. Thus the Government exercised the powers which were not vested in it and had become vested in the Public Service Commission. AJ&K Govt. v. Javed Iqbal Khawaja & another 1996 SCR 40 (L)
  20. Re-advertisement of posts — Govt. does not have the power to issue direction to the Public Service Commission to re-advertise any post. M. Anwar Khan v. Mumtaz-ul-Hassan 1997 SCR 328 (A)
  21. Marks awarded to candidates by a Subject Specialist can be ignored by Public Service Commission. Muhammad Ishaque Khan v. Khurshid Aziz & 3 others 1998 SCR 1 (B)
  22. Specialist in statistics cannot be regarded to be Specialist in Commerce — Specialists for all subjects were not available — Marks awarded by Subject Specialist were excluded. Muhammad Ishaque Khan v. Khurshid Aziz & 3 others 1998 SCR 1 (C)
  23. There is nothing in the relevant rules that the date once fixed by the Commission cannot be changed afterwards. Iftikhar Ahmad Khilji v. Azad Govt. & 7 others 1999 SCR 366 (E)
  24. A candidate who obtains minimum standard of passing marks, fixed by commission, has to be placed in the merit list and that list has to be sent to the appropriate authority for its consideration for appointment. Sikandar Azam v. Azad Govt. and 3 others 2009 SCR 91(E) 2005 SCR 57 rel.
  25. No discretion is left with the Commission to hide the merit list and merit can be ascertained when marks of each candidate are displayed. Sikandar Azam v. Azad Govt. 2009 SCR 91 (D)
  26. Three posts of Lecturer Islamayat were available when advertisement was issued against District Sudhnuti and appellant is holding one of these posts — Held: It was incumbent upon Public Service Commission to have recommended all those who obtained the minimum passing marks for consideration of Government — Moreso when the appellant was holding one of the posts on ad hoc basis. Sikandar Azam v. Azad Govt. and 3 others 2009 SCR 91 (F) 
  27. —The action of the PSC regarding consideration of the certificates after the last date fixed for receipt of the applications without recording any reason is illegal and violative of the AJ&K PSC(Procedure) Rules, 1994, hence, is declared without lawful authority. Imran Shafee vs Saeed Ahmed & others 2018 SCR 1230 (B)
error: Content is protected !!