2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
TAHIR MEHMOOD Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
| Citation | 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | High Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Munir Ahmed Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | TAHIR MEHMOOD Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR |
| Primary Law | Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Munir Ahmed Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (TAHIR MEHMOOD Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Raza Ali Khan for Petitioner.
- Sardar Abdus Sami Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 44
Petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis and appointment order mentioned that same was on ad hoc basis for six months and competent authority could terminate the ad hoc appointment without issuing any notice at any time
Said conditions were mentioned in all of the orders regarding the extension of the basic order of ad hoc appointment
Ad hoc appointment would create no right and such like Officer would not come in the ambit of a 'civil servant'
Petitioner had no locus standi to file a writ petition on the basis of his being an ad hoc appointee.
Judgment & Decree
MUNIR AHMED CHAUDHRY, J.
The above captioned writ petition was filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, through which the following prayer was made:
"It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that by allowing this petition appropriate writ may kindly be issued to the following effect: (i) Prohibiting the respondents to discontinue the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner until and unless the post held by the petitioner is filled on regular basis after selection on merit under law/ rules. (ii) Directing the respondents to approve the proposal of extension of ad hoc appointment contained in the summary dated 5-1-2011 moved by Secretary Local Government Board. Any other relief to which the petitioner is entitled to may also graciously be granted along with the costs".
2. Petitioner stated in the petition that he was appointed as Chief Officer B-17 in the Local Government Department on ad hoc basis vide Order No.4723-29 dated 17-7-2009. Thereafter, extensions were made regarding his ad hoc appointment. The process for permanent appointment against the said post could not be initiated, so, Secretary Local Government Board has moved a summary for further extension of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner but the respondents are bent upon to terminate the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner to fill up the aforesaid post for political consideration. The petitioner has prayed to issue a writ in the manner mentioned above.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents. Respondent No.4 submitted parawise comments and stated that no proposal for termination of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner was under consideration. Petitioner has got no locus-standi to file this writ petition on the basis of ad hoc appointment. Respondent No.4 prayed to dismiss the writ petition along with the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner.
4. Arguments were heard. The learned counsel for the parties advanced their arguments and only repeated their versions taken in the pleadings, which require no need to produce their arguments in black and white.
5. After hearing the arguments, I have gone through the record available minutely. It has been admitted through the record that petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis. It has been mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioner that the appointment is purely on ad hoc basis and for six months and competent authority can terminate this ad hoc appointment without issuing any notice at any time. The same conditions are mentioned in all of the orders regarding the extension of the basic order of ad hoc appointment. It is a settled principle of law that ad hoc appointment creates no right and such like officer does not come in the ambit of a civil servant. So, petitioner has got no locus-standi to file a writ petition on the basis of his ad hoc appointment. Having in view the circumstances indicated above, this writ petition stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. H.B.T./21/AJ&K(HC) Petition dismissed.