7, 20, 24, 26 and Schedule II Promotion of Appeal Promotion The complaint of the appellants was that the respondents who were junior to them were reinforced in the posts which were selected by the Chief Justice of the High Court Establishment. Were to be filled up by If otherwise eligible for such promotional post referred to in High Court Establishment (Appointment and Terms Service) Rules, 1964 R7, there were selection posts and the law to recruit someone on the basis of seniority low fitness. There was no need. The Chief Justice was given great powers to select and disseminate any employee from the Establishment, for which the Chief Justice made RR 7 & 26 of the High Court Establishment Rules, 1964. The decision taken was not justified. The decisions taken under RR 20 and 23 of the High Court only under Schedule II of the High Court Establishment Rules (Terms of Service and Terms of Service) Rules, 1964 It was noted that the respondents' development decision was taken by the Chief Justice High Court under R-7 of the High Court Establishment R 26 The Read (Rules of Appointment and Terms of Service) Rules, 1964, was therefore unable to maintain an appeal. The appeal was dismissed under the circumstances.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
