Find a Lawyer

NASIR HUSSAIN SHAH versus CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS

In the constitutional petition relating to the issuance of mandamus of the affected person in sections 42 and 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, the Supreme Court appeals to the petitioner / applicant that the High Court challenged the appointment of the plaintiff. The High Court had alleged that the appointment was made on a direct charge. While the Minister cannot be appointed without the advertisement of this post under the relevant rules, the High Court has rejected the constitutional request and said that instead of filing a constitutional application, the applicant should first resort to the departmental authority and then the service tribunal. Should be resolved Appellant applicant's complaint for his constitutional request was that if the post was disputed under the rules, he could apply for the post as applicant / applicant as a candidate. He did not, however, accept this in a constitutional petition. The post has been promoted by the contents of the constitutional petition, revealing that it was for the mandamus writ to ask the authorities to fill the vacancies in accordance with the rules, but the High Court on the basis of the petition It is excluded that the applicant, as a civil servant, may demand a redress. By resorting to departmental measures and then, by filing an appeal to the Service Tribunal and noting that the applicant was a provocative person, regardless of whether the applicant was a provocative person or not. The order to dismiss the constitutional petition is to seek remand to the High Court to decide the matter according to law. online advocate from Mehar lawyer