MUHAMMAD ARIF KAYANI versus CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD
Article 8 Estacode (1989), page 225 In the Federal Public Service Commission, an Assistant to a seniority appellant preferred to appeal for his seniority determination and also to any respondents No.3 and to the respondents, 4, 5 and 6 of whom They did not implement the grounds appealed by the appellant. His development as an assistant was formally regulated before the date of the appointment of the defendant who was entitled to be a permanent defendant, and the appellant was promoted the same year, in accordance with the general principles and principles of the same year. Direct recruitment was a priority in seniority. The seniority and in any case such defendant cannot calculate the seniority on the basis of his ad hoc appointment, the promotion of the appellant as an assistant was regularized from 1 1984 onwards. While the ad hoc appointment of the respondents was made regular from 20 1982 to 1982, after which the regular appointment of the respondents as the assistant to the appellant from 1984 to 1984 and the position of the respondent came into operation in the same year ie 1984 and the reply. The appointment of the Veterans was earlier. More than the promotion of the appellant, the appellant was placed on the respondents list in the circular list circulated in 1987 on the basis of general principles of seriousness, no evidence was presented to prove that on a regular basis. Appellant was promoted to assistant for which he was available. Respondents thus remained senior to the appellant from any earlier date and the appeal was not retained even for non-participation of the required parties.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
