Find a Lawyer

JAVED IQBAL KHAWAJA versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Sections 42 and 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, Section 22 Notification No. S&GAD / A4 (170) / VI / R / 90 of the State Government of Jammu and Kashmir directs the Public Service Commission While releasing, the experience and training of candidates who were appointed on an end-to-end basis should be taken into consideration when selecting positions. Such notification was approved to the Authority administration in Azad Jammu and Kashmir. Ad hoc appointments in various positions without reference to the Public Service Commission from 1985 to 16 8 1992, when the Supreme Court declared such appointments a violation of the Constitution and the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act 1976. Was made regular. The government was also declared illegal, and therefore, with the effect of the Supreme Court decision, the Public Service Commission was instructed to provide the obligations. Such ad hoc appointments to the promotion of experience and notification about notification, the selection against these letters had an effect on the merit without the merit test process as per the accepted ethics of the election and when the independent Jammu and The provisions were examined on the basis of provisions. According to the provisions of the Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976 and the provisions of the Constitution, it was found to be contrary to the Constitution of Sections 22, Civil Servants Act 1976 and Sections 42 (a) (3) and 42 (b) of the Constitution. It has the power to take the exam, to provide the syllabus for the test and to regulate the recruitment process; for this purpose the rules and notification issued by the government must meet the test advice by the commission and the government. patent advocate from Piplan lawyer