Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 read with K.S.R.

  1. Rule 8 of the Rules and Article 24 of the K.S.R. — If there is any inconsistency between the rules framed in the K.S.R. and those framed under Civil Servants Act, 1976, the provisions contained in Rules of 1977, shall prevail — Prima facie there is no inconsistency between rule 8 of the rules of 1977 and Rule 24 of K.S.R. on the point of seniority in case of promotion. Ch. Muhammad Zaman v. Azad Govt. & 4 others. Ch. M. Zaman v. Azad Govt. & 4 others 1996 SCR 171 (B)
  2. Although different phraseologies have been used in Rule 8 of the Rules of 1977 and Rule 24 (C) of K.S.R. in the relevant provisions but there is no difference so far as principle of seniority in case of promotion is concerned — When a civil servant who is senior in lower grade to other civil servant and both are promoted in next higher grade the person who is senior in the lower grade without superseding him shall retain his seniority. Ch. M. Zaman v. Azad Govt. 1996 SCR 171 (C)
  3. S. 23 — Ad hoc appointment — If subsequent orders of ad hoc appointments of the proforma 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 too after sending the requisition to the P.S.C. as envisaged under rule 23. Azad Govt. v. Israr H. Mughal 1996 SCR 278 (A)
  4. 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 appointments mechanically repeated indefinitely after period of six months without complying the conditions laid down in rule 23. Azad Govt. v. Israr Hussain Mughal 1996 SCR 278 (C)
  5. 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) 
error: Content is protected !!