Find a Lawyer

TAHIR MEHMOOD versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Article 44 Writ Petition Civil Service Ad hoc Applicant Appointment was made on an ad hoc basis and the appointment order states that it was ad hoc for six months and that the competent authority may terminate the ad hoc appointment at any time without notice. The Adhoc Appointment will not create any right in all orders relating to extension of the basic order of ad hoc appointment mentioned and the officer shall not fall under the jurisdiction of any public servant. There was no locus standi to file the writ petition. As an ad hoc appointment

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2012

• MUHAMMAD ASLAM v. SHAMIM AKHTAR 2012 PLD 14
• Mian MUMTAZ AKHTAR v. AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR COUNCIL SECRETARIAT through Secretary 2012 PLD 28
• KHALIDA BEGUM v. MUHAMMAD RASHID KHAN 2012 PLD 34
• MUHAMMAD LATIF KHAN v. MUHAMMAD RASHEED KHAN 2012 MLD 86
• AFTAB GULL v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT BAGH 2012 PLC(CS) 151
• Ch. MUHAMMAD FAROOQ v. COMMISSIONER REVENUE, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR, MUZAFFARABAD DIVISION 2012 PLC(CS) 157
• MUHAMMAD SHAUKAT DAR v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT KAHUTA HAVELI 2012 PLC(CS) 315
• SOHAIL BOSTAN CHAUDHARY v. MDA through Chairman MDA Mirpur AK 2012 MLD 422

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2012 →

Pakistan, top advocate family court from Village Sunder lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes