SHAUKAT AZIZ versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, MUZAFFARAABAD
Sections 7, 42, 42E, 43 (2A), 44 (5) and 58 Written Notice of Appointment of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Roll of Business (1985), R3 (3), Schedule II, Item 18 (C). The High Court judge issued the letter of the President without consulting the Chief Justice, confirming the receipt of the counsel's justification for the appointment of judges, requiring transparency in the appointments, meaningful and objective counsel's independence of the judiciary. The stimulus will be considered. The nominated judge was not included in the panel of judges already sent to the state by the chief justice, then the letter was addressed to the Minister of Kashmir / Minister in-charge Kashmir Council for appointment as judge. No person recommended `No objection after receiving objection from Chief Justice in this regard` Letter from the Chief Justice to the appointment of a Judge to the person was not written by Azad Azad Jammu & Kashi Chief Justice. Never mind, Mir cannot be treated as a consultation because he has not re-recommended the person, nor has the latest recommendations or panels. He was born there was no way the situation but did not provide the current practices and procedures of the consultation process it was always at the request of the Chief Justice. Sending their respective panels, the Chief Justice of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and the Chief Justice of the High Court must have been advised to appoint judges in the High Court as neither of them could perform any other task. And in the absence of any other, no recommendation would have any constitutional validity; no combination of dual / dual personality was allowed under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Constitution Act, 1974, while the ambiguous notification
