MUHAMMAD BILAL KHAN versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Sections 4, 9 and 22 Independent Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Terms of Service) Rules, 1977, RR 10 A, 16 and 23 ad hoc appointments, especially those eligible for service in Grade 17, had to be made. Based on the recommendations of the Public Service Commission, which was to be recorded after a test and interview under the law, the appointment of the ad hoc did not create any right to a regular appointment and it was a stop gap arrangement that continued until regular appointments. ? Adopted; ad hoc will not grant any right, as far as legal status is concerned, irrespective of the duration of any such visit. Such an appointment can be made for a limited period of time when the term was available and was promoted by the Public Service Commission, if the legislative assembly also regulates its recruitment appointments, This piece would be against the Constitution. Using its powers under section 22 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, it had to be removed from the State Book Executive Government if Adhoc regularized the appointment or was later exempted from appearing before the Public Service Commission. It was, that this notification or order was to be sent to gold forever, no right, in the circumstances without the recommendations of the Public Service Commission may be given to the ad hoc appointee for regular inclusion, ad hoc appointments. Does not create any right to a regular appointment. The open door / entrance to permanent employment in the public service was through the relevant Public Service Commission and the selection committee ad hoc appointment was the appointment of a competent person, based on the relevant recruitment process.
Related judgments — Supreme Court Azad Kashmir, 2010
