Find a Lawyer

IRSHAD ALI SHAH versus CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY

The Section 9 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), the standard of section 4 promotion for development from the service tribunal appellant, who was a diploma holder in technology and PG8, claimed that the appellant's claim in PG 9. The land was denied by the authority. Under the Terms of Service, Appellants cannot be promoted to PG 9 because they are not engineers Engineer Appellants claimed that their development in PG 9 and above cannot be ruled out, As is not a condition. Is present when the appellants entered the service and stated that this condition could not be applied. The appellants further claimed that in the absence of proper regulation, they were subject to PG 9 and above in the terms of service. Cannot lose the right to development in authority. Implementing the standards set for development in engineering posts of PG9 and above, it is stated that the authority has no control of appeals for development in engineering posts of DPG9 and above. The quality was not accurate, Appellant was not a graduate engineer, while it was stated that the promotion of PG9 Regulation Engineering Posts selection posts had to be done on merit and suitability, and may have been completed only by the Graduate Engineers Appellant. In those situations, PG9 and above were not eligible for development by choosing engineering positions and It was especially Authority jurisdiction to adopt whether a particular qualification will be considered sufficient enough to develop a special school or not. From grade to advanced and was also periodically under the jurisdiction of the authority solicitors from Nooriabad lawyer