Find a Lawyer

KHURSHID NAZ versus AZAD KASHMIR GOVERNMENT

Sections 42 and 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Authorization Act of 1974 Establishment of offices of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Content (Ombudsman) Act 1992, Section 9 (2) and 32 President's appointment cancellation powers The appointment of the respondent / anti-government employee Primary teacher Was dismissed by the Authority on the basis that the name of the respondent / anti-government employee was wrongly included in the merit list, before which the defendant / anti-government employee filed a complaint against the authority order, the matter was inquired. And concluded that the appointee was independent of the respondent / anti-government employee of the plaintiff / anti-government employee, right Filed a representation before the President of Jammu and Kashmir, who accepted the representation, restored the respondent / public servant and relieved the applicant public servant who was more qualified than the respondent / opposition citizen under Siddique Siddiqui Presidency. Under the President of Kashmir Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Station of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman) Act 1992, only an order could be passed with regard to the provisions of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Establishment of Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Act 1992 and the order under it. Beyond the President without approving. Section 32 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Establishment of Ombudsman (Ombudsman) Act, 1992, did not have the power to exercise its powers which were passed by the President Tinder Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Authorization Act, 1974 or the President of the General Law of Azad Jammu. As they were. And Kashmir violated the provisions of Section 9 (2) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Station of Ombudsman (Ombudsman) Act, 1992, rejecting the reinstatement of the respondent / the restoration of a civil servant and the appointment of the applicant / public servant. Which had litigation. Constitutionally famous supreme court advocate from Mustang lawyer