RAJA ISHTIAQ AKBAR versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
R23, Part IV Adhoc Appointments Rule 23, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Terms of Service) Part IV of 1977, clarifying the ad rule appointment procedure states that even ad hoc appointments, arbitrary. The first prerequisite for hiring an ad hoc was to do the same in the public interest. The second condition was that before making such an appointment, the appointing authority sent the application to the selection authority and the appointment was subject to a further 23 conditions, which are listed in sub-rules (1) to (5) of R23, saying the conditions were compulsory and It could not be ignored. On 23 days of the appointment of the Advocate, Proso had little effect, declaring that the ad hoc appointment would not confer any rights on the appointment of regular persons for the same position, nor would it count as an elder in the service. ? The grade regularization of the Ad hoc Appointments Act 1992 was unconstitutional and all appointments made on the basis of the said Act were declared as ad hoc appointments and were ordered to be done through the Public Service Commission process.
