Find a Lawyer

ZULFIQAR AHMED versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Article 13 (1) and (3) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VII of 1974), the appointment to the appointment of section 44 written application can only be justified by the appointment only if it has the right of promotion. As a result, this post becomes vacant. Depending on the regular charge of the defendant, it is protected under the rules of deputation, leave or appointment or transfer through transfer. Government development work has no right to progress on a regular basis and terminates as soon as it is done by a person. Was also obligated to do. Becomes available for promotion on a regular basis. Legal legislation did not give any authority to regulate promotion, so development officials were not entitled to regulate government appointments.

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2013

• HUMA KALEEM v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2013 MLD 805
• Syed SIBTUL HASSAN SABZWARI v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2013 PLC(CS) 848
• ABDUL AZIZ MUGHAL v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2013 PLC(CS) 873
• Syeda SABEEN NAZ v. PRIME MINISTER, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2013 PLC(CS) 909
• ABDUL SHAKOOR v. INSPECTOR-GENERAL POLICE, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD 2013 PLC(CS) 980
• Sardar ARIF KHAN v. AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2013 PLC(CS) 993
• Mrs. JAMSHED NAQVI v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary 2013 PLC(CS) 1037
• MEHMOOD AHMED v. MUHAMMAD BASHIR 2013 MLD 1159

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2013 →

online advocate from Malakwal lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes