SHAHEEN AFZAL versus MEMBER (ADORN.), CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ISLAMABAD
Capital Development Authority Employees (Service) Regulations 1992 Regulations 6 03 (B) and 6 06 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Seniority Treatment Appeal Appellant as well as 2400 for 59 posts of Medical Officers (B17). Candidates applied. On the recommendation of the Open Advertising Departmental Selection Committee, the first batch of 18 medical officers, including the appellant, were appointed and the remaining 2400 candidates were periodically selected by the department selection committee, followed by the appellant and his The other 17 batchmates are also selected after selection. The seniority appellant was shown senior with some of his sons, but he was shown junior to them in the revised seniority list, appellant challenged the authority's action, which stated that the former seniority list Accordingly, his seniority should be restored in which he was shown as senior and he was also considered for promotion from the date on which the juniors were made respondent along with Validati Appellant and the score of one and the same advertisement. They were selected and appointed, though the appellant and his other 17 batch mates were already selected Now, if two or more people were appointed by the same open ad, their inter-seniority would be determined by the Capital Development Authority Employees Regulations, Regulation 6 03 of 1992 (1992). B) the order of merit assigned to them by the Selection Authority under, the properly executing authority of the seniority rule, the revised seniority list in which the Appellant was shown inferior to the respondents.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
