PLC(CS) 2003

2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Mst. FOZIA NOOR Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 3 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Azad J&K
Decided Date
Writ Petition No. 370 of 2002, decided on 29th January, 2003.
Honorable Judges
Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Azad J&K
Bench Members Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, J
Parties Mst. FOZIA NOOR Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 3 others
Primary Law Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1977
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1977 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Azad J&K bench comprising: Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mst. FOZIA NOOR Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1977

Representation

  • Raza Ali Khan for Petitioner.
  • Addl A.-G. for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 29th January, 2003.
  • Mr. Raza Ali Khan, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the rules of quota are manadatory and has a statutory backing, therefore, no advertisement can be made without determining the quota of the respective units of the Districts. The learned Advocate referred to and relied upon sub-rules (1) and (5) of Rule 3 of the Azad J&K Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. The learned Advocate also relied on Umar Hayat's case (1999 PLC (C.S.) 98) and contended that the Apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has seriously taken the notice of violation of the quota and directed that the provisions regarding the quota are mandatory and cannot be passed by the competent authority while sending the requisition to the P.S.C.
  • The learned Additional Advocate-General who is present before the Court, is unable to controvert the arguments of the learned Advocate for the petitioner.
  • I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have perused the record made available with this petition.
  • As observed hereinabove, the respondents have failed to file written statement, therefore, no material is placed before the Court from which it could be ascertained that the present action of the respondents was justified. Mr. Raza Ali Khan, learned Advocate for the petitioner has rightly contended that the provisions regarding the quota are mandatory and all the authorities are bound to follow the same. The Apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in Umar Hayat s case took a serious view of the matter and directed all the authorities to make appointments keeping view the mandatory provisions of the quota. It is useful to reproduce the relevant observations of the Apex Court as under.

Headnotes / Summary

R.3(1)(4)(5)

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act (VI of 1976), Ss.2 & 4

Appointment

Determination of quota of posts

Civil servant initially .was appointed on ad hoc basis as Subject Specialist and his appointment was extended from time to time

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission issued advertisement whereby applications were invited for induction on different posts in different Departments including post of Subject Specialist which post had been advertised on open merit basis

Said advertisement was made without allocation of quota to different units of Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Rules of quota were mandatory and had a statutory backing

No advertisement, in circumstances, could be made without determining the quota of respective units

Reservation on the basis of regional quota was mandatory and not simply a rule of convenience in view of provisions of Ss.2 & 4 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976 and R.3(4)(5) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977, and considering various Government Orders

All concerned functionaries were bound to implement the same and any inconsistent order would be a serious illegality

Authority concerned was directed to determine the quota of Subject Specialist post accordingly. Umar Hayat's case 1999 PLC (C.S.) 93 ref.

Judgment & Decree

In light of the Council Resolution, No.48/71 the following regional quota in Government Services has been fixed:--

1. J&K refugees settled in Pakistan 25%

2. District Mirpur 30%

3. District Poonch. 25%

4. District Muzaffarabad. 20%

2. Notification issued under No. Admin/3003 34/C.S/71 dated 16-3-1971 by which 10 percent. representation in services was sectioned for backward area as is cancelled in light, of the Council Resolution mentioned above. They will be absorbed in the quota of their respective districts.

3. Recruitment in the District Offices shall be made from the same district. This may please be acted upon in future. Sd/-Additional Chief Secretary" (Translated) Another circular was issued on 5th July, 1972 in which certain aspects about the quota system were clarified. This is the circular on which the appellant has based his claim. Translated in English the circular was worded as follows: "From the office of the Chief Secretary; Services and General Administration Department Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Af,om/1266-1271/C.S/72 dated 5-7-1972: To

1. All Secretaries to the Government.

3. All Heads of Departments. Sub: Regional Quota in Government Services. The Government decision about district-wise representation has already been communicated to you. In continuation of that decision, I am directed to state that whenever it is intended to fill up a vacancy the concerned department shall be bound to indicate in the advertisement that the post would be filled up from the district specified therein against the reserved quota and only candidates from that district would be brought under consideration. However, if a suitable candidate possessing the required merit is not available from that district, the appointment will be made from amongst suitable candidates from other districts. This principle would apply to all posts which are filled up through competitive examination and are gazetted. So far as non-gazetted and subordinate officials are concerned they will be recruited from within their available from within the district in that case appointing authority will bring the matter in the notice of the immediate officer and would then make appointment from other districts. P.S.C. will also be required to indicate in the advertisement inviting applications that the recommendations of the Commission will be formulated on the basis of district-wise quota, however, if candidate of required merit is not available the Commission will recommend the most suitable candidates irrespective of the district to which he belongs. Please act upon the foregoing. (Sd.) Addl. Chief Secretary." Mr. Abdul Rashid Abbasi added that Fundamental Right. No.17 (Safeguard against Discrimination in services) visualizes that Government jobs can be reserved on the basis of place of birth or domicile. There is force in this submission. The legal provisions and Government orders reproduced above support the view taken in the judgment under appeal that reservation on the basis of regional quota is mandatory in nature and negative the other view that it is rule of convenience. For the latter view no reasons has been recorded by the High Court. The learned Counsel for the respondents also did not support the rule of convenience' view and contested the appeal on technical grounds to which we will be presently adverting. We, therefore, uphold the opinion that the provisions under reference are mandatory to nature. It is, therefore, clear that all concerned functionaries are bound to implement them and any inconsistent order will be a serious illegality. In view of above, the writ petition is accepted and the Secretary Education is directed to determine the quota of the disputed post i.e. the Subject Specialist (Psychology) and after determining the quota, amended requisition shall be sent to the P.S.C. for test and interview, Advertisement No.1 of 2002 to the extent of Subject Specialist (Psychology) is hereby quashed. H.B.T./52/AJK Petition accepted.