Find a Lawyer

KH. MAHBOOB-UR-REHMAN versus ISHFAQ AHMED

Prior to the delay of the service tribunal, section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act 1975, the appellant, both the appellant and the defendant, was appointed as the agricultural officer on the same date, but the appellant was appointed as a Horticulture Assistant in BPS 17. Was promoted as the top name in the seniority list. The cases of both the respondents and the defendants were referred to the Selection Board with which their development was considered but the AC Rs of both was not sent to the Selection Board for the years from 1985 to 1987. had gone. Whereas in the case of the respondents from 1987 to 1989 and the selection board was against the respondents credibility of AC Rs for the year 1988, it was rejected and the appellant service tribunal was promoted, on appeal to the appellant. Promotion order isolated. And ordered to promote the respondents. The Head of Department of Correction was obliged to send all the AC Rupees to the selection board for validation, but this was not done, before the selection board, both the applicant and the defendants. The relevant geo-data was not submitted, the selection board did not properly consider it for the purpose of promotion, the order of the appellant's selection was separated by directions. After keeping all the ACR of the ACR of the competing officers for the year 1988 on the issue of promotion of the appellant and the defendant through the selection board which was against the credit of the respondent by the selection board, Will also be considered and detected. Since the service tribunal property advocate from Sagri lawyer