Ehtesab Bureau

2016 PLC(CS) 601 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Act, 2001, Ss. 5, 6, 32 & 42Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.44Writ petition before High CourtMaintainabilityCivil serviceEmployees of Ehtesab BureauTermination of employees by the Chairman Ehtesab BureauEhtesab BureauNecessary party

Contention of employees was that Chairman Ehtesab Bureau had no power to terminate their services as appointing authority was the President

Writ petitions filed by the employee were dismissed by the High Court

Validity

Any order passed by the Chairman would be deemed to be the order of Ehtesab Bureau

Powers for appointment against the posts of officers and staff in the Ehtesab Bureau were exercise-able by the Ehtesab Bureau

Such powers would vest in the Chairman who should exercise the same and might delegate such powers to any of the officers

Chairman Ehtesab Bureau passed the termination order and he had been arrayed as party in the line of respondent

Ehtesab Bureau was not a juristic person and it was not necessary to array the same as respondent

Chairman Ehtesab Bureau was the necessary party but not the Ehtesab Bureau

Appointment orders of the employees were made by the President with the condition that same would be temporary in nature

Temporary appointment did not confer any right for permanent induction

President was to make Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Service (Composition, Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and were to be consistent with the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Act, 2001

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Service (Composition, Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 had not been made by the President with the consultation of the Chief Justice of High Court which were not valid having no legal value

President had no power to frame Azad Jammu and Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau Service (Composition, Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009 without the consultation of Chief Justice of High Court

Said Rules, were not a statutory provision and had no legal force

Chairman Ehtesab Bureau had powers only to appoint the officers and staff in the Ehtesab Bureau when petitioners were appointed

President had no power on the relevant date to appoint a person in the Ehtesab Bureau

Person who had not come in the court with clean hands had no right to maintain a writ petition

Appointment order of employees being an ill-gotten gain, writ could not be issued for retention of ill-gotten gain

Writ petitions of employees before the High Court were liable to be dismissed on the said sole ground

Appeals were dismissed by the Supreme Court.