MUZAFFARABAD: The Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court has dismissed a set of writ petitions filed by candidates seeking appointment as civil judges/magistrates first class (BPS-17) from the waiting list of the Public Service Commission (PSC), ruling that appointments could not be made against posts that were neither advertised nor requisitioned to the constitutional recruitment body.
Justice Chaudhary Khalid Rasheed, while deciding five identical petitions through a single judgment, held that the waiting list prepared by the PSC could only be used for the limited purpose prescribed under Rule 13 of the AJK Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994, namely, when a selected candidate failed to join or was declared medically unfit.
The petitioners had contended that seven posts of civil judges advertised in 2022 were fewer than the actual available vacancies and alleged that several posts were deliberately withheld by the authorities. They argued that, having qualified for the test and interview, they were entitled to an appointment either against the allegedly withheld posts or based on general merit, as per policy notifications issued in 2003 and 2007.
Rejecting these claims, the court observed that the law did not recognise the use of waiting lists for filling fresh or unadvertised vacancies. “No one can claim appointment merely based on being placed on the waiting list,” the judge noted, adding that courts could neither add to nor subtract from statutory provisions.
Court rules waiting lists cannot fill unadvertised posts; orders fresh requisition to PSC
Justice Rasheed further declared the notifications dated March 27, 2003, and January 18, 2007, which allowed cross-district appointments and future quota adjustments, to be without legal backing.
He held that only rules framed under the AJK Public Service Commission Act, 1986, had statutory force, and policy notifications issued by departments lacking rule-making authority had “no legal sanctity”.
Justice Rasheed also relied on recent judgments of the AJK Supreme Court, including a 2023 ruling which categorically barred appointments beyond the number of advertised posts.
“If two positions are advertised, only two appointments can be made,” the apex court had held, a principle reaffirmed in the present case.
While dismissing the petitions, Justice Rasheed expressed concern over repeated extensions of ad-hoc appointments in the judiciary, observing that such practices ran contrary to service rules and apex court directions. He maintained that ad-hoc appointments were meant to be temporary and subject to timely requisition of posts to the PSC.
The judge directed the relevant authorities to immediately requisition all available posts of civil judges/magistrates first class to the PSC, if not already done, and ordered the registrar to place the matter before the competent authority for compliance. A copy of the judgment was also sent to the Services and General Administration Department for circulation to ensure strict adherence across all departments.
Meanwhile, in a separate consolidated judgement on eight petitions relating to recruitment in the AJK Health Department, Justice Rasheed held that appointments made to various posts of junior technician (BPS-9) in Haveli district, pursuant to an advertisement issued on May 10, 2025, were vitiated by illegality and lack of transparency.
The court found that the selection process involved discriminatory allocation of interview marks, reliance on fake or unverifiable experience certificates and acceptance of diplomas.
Published in Dawn, December 27th, 2025
