Appointments of certain officials were made on temporary basis against their lien

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS)N 3 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SALEEM
Side Opponent : AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
R. 33---Temporary appointment---Scope---Appointments of certain officials were made on temporary basis against their lien---Temporary appointment did not create right for permanent induction---Such employees could not claim confirmation on the basis of said appointment---Petitioners who were regular employees of the department and were promoted on officiating basis, had right that their cases for regular promotion be presented before the Selection Committee for consideration---Selection Committee was to examine as to whether petitioners (regular employees) were entitled to confirmation on the basis of their seniority and fitness or not---Department was directed by High Court to advertise the posts held by the said officials (appointed on temporary basis) against the quota reserved for initial recruitment within specified period---Writ petition was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2018 PLC(CS)N 137 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Side Appellant : RASHID AHMED
Side Opponent : PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary
Promotion---Scope---Petitioner-employee had been exonerated from all the inquiries---Cases were being re-opened on some false pretext---Mala fide of department was on record---Petitioner-employee remained suspended for two years---No Annual Confidential Report was required during the period of suspension---Question of promotion rested within the power of competent authority---When authorities competent to award promotion acted in violation of law, in excess of jurisdiction, without jurisdiction and in colourable exercise of powers, Chief Court could exercise writ jurisdiction to redress the wrong---Department had deprived the employee from his legitimate right of promotion in violation of rules and regulations---Some inquiries had been illegally ordered from which petitioner had been exonerated even after issuance of restraining order from the Chief Court---Executive authorities were bound to follow the orders/judgments of Chief Court in letter and spirit---Orders for holding inquiries in circumstances were struck down---Authorities were directed to promote the employee from the date of holding post with all back benefits and seniority admissible under law---Writ petition was allowed in circumstances.

Citation Name : 2017 PLC(CS) 1457 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD TUFAIL MIR
Side Opponent : SECRETARY ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
S. 7---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, Rr.10-B & 13---seniority ---Determination of---Officiating promotion---Scope---Service Tribunal ordered for determination of seniority of the relevant cadres diploma holder Sub-Engineer and B. Tech. (Hons) employees of the department according to departmental rules on the basis of their first appointment/induction into service--Validity---Authority could cause seniority list from time to time of the members of service, cadre or grade---seniority would take place from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade---Civil servants who were selected for promotion to higher grade in one batch should on their promotion retain their inter se-seniority ---Promotion of Sub-Engineer on creation of vacancy of Assistant Engineer should be made while considering the respective dates of obtaining qualification along with the prescribed experience after such qualification---All qualified persons while passing acting/current charge promotion orders should have been considered and if the posts were available then promotion order for regular induction should have been made---Officiating promotion order could be made when post fell vacant as a result of deputation, leave or on current charge basis of the regular incumbent---Qualified civil servant having relevant experience and qualification prescribed for the post might be appointed/promoted but such promotion would not confer any right for regular promotion---All eligible persons were not considered while issuing the promotion orders on current charge basis and officiating basis, only the appellants were considered for such promotion---Judgment passed by the Service Tribunal was legal---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.