High Court Direct Recruitment vs Promotion: Section Officer Posts and Ad Hoc Service in AJ&K
براہِ راست بھرتی بمقابلہ پروموشن: Section Officer پوسٹس اور Ad Hoc خدمات – High Court AJ&K کا فیصلہ
تعارف:
اہم نکات:
عدالتی حکمت عملی اور سبق:
نتیجہ:
Must read Judgement
2025 P L C (C.S.) 540
[High Court (AJ&K)]
Before Syed Shahid Bahar, J
SHOAIB MEHMOOD AWAN
Versus
OMBUDSMAN (MOHTASIB), AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR and 3 others
Writ Petition No.457 of 2023, decided on 10th June, 2024.
(a) Civil service---
----Posts relating to direct quota---Recruitment through promotion instead---Compliance report as well as written statement submitted by the official respondents showed that they (official respondents) were bent upon to fill posts in question through promotions from the other employees of the department and in said regard they had initiated proceedings and convened meetings secretly, which depicted that they had admitted the version of the petitioner regarding availability of the posts relating to the direct quota of appointment but they were not taking any steps to advertise the same for induction in accordance with rules and were delaying the matter unnecessarily---Record (of another writ petition previously filed by someone else) revealed that official respondents in the said proceedings had themselves admitted that 02 vacant posts of Section Officers relating to the direct quota of recruitment were vacant in the department---There was nothing to prolong the mater and to avoid the process of law on the part of the respondents because the petitioner had sufficiently proved the availability of the posts---Act of the respondents regarding non-advertisement of the posts for direct recruitment indicated that they were bent upon to fill in the posts in question through promotion---Thus, both the posts were liable to be advertised forthwith against the quota of direct recruitment---High Court directed the official respondents to advertise 02 vacant posts of Section Officer BPS-17 for permanent induction against the quota reserved for direct recruitment within 01 month; and till the permanent induction of the said posts, petitioner shall not be relieved or disturbed---Writ petition was allowed accordingly.
(b) Civil service---
----Posts relating to direct quota---Recruitment through promotion instead---Salary for service on ad hoc basis---Entitlement---Written statement submitted by the official respondents showed that they (official respondents) had admitted that the petitioner was still serving as ad hoc Section Officer and he has not been relieved by the competent authority---Thus, there appeared no justified reason to stop salary of the petitioner and respondents were bound to pay his salary---Furthermore, his ad hoc service shall not be disturbed till the permanent appointment in due process of law---High Court directed respondents to do needful qua payment of remaining/outstanding monthly salary of the petitioner in his capacity of Section Officer---Writ petition was allowed accordingly.
(c) Civil service---
----Posts relating to direct quota---Recruitment through promotion instead---Admission of officials/department---Effect---Record (compliance report/written statement submitted by the official respondents) showed that they (official respondents), had admitted that 02 vacant post of Section Officer fell in the quota of direct recruitment---Thus, things admitted need not be proved---Law required advertisement of the posts-in-question as well as fair and transparent selection process, resulting is meritorious appointment to such posts---Any rigmaroles, unnecessary delay and pendency in such-like matters gives birth to suspicion---Thus, both the posts were liable to be advertised forthwith against the quota of direct recruitment---High Court directed the official respondents to advertise 02 vacant posts of Section Officer BPS-17 for permanent induction against the quota reserved for direct recruitment within 01 month; and till the permanent induction of the said posts, petitioner shall not be relieved or disturbed---Writ petition was allowed accordingly.
Ch. Shoukat Aziz for Petitioner.
No comments:
Post a Comment