AJK High Court Protects Job Seekers: Law Revival Doesn't Scrap Prior Ads

In the ever-evolving landscape of administrative law, staying informed about how legislative changes affect ongoing processes is crucial. A recent landmark judgment by the High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Adeel-uz-Zaman v. Public Service Commission [Writ Petition No. 2727/2025] provides vital clarity on the "revival" of laws and the protection of vested rights.

Whether you are a government job aspirant or a department navigating recruitment hurdles, understanding these legal principles is essential for protecting your interests.

The Doctrine of Non-Retroactivity: Lex Prospicit Non Respicit

At the heart of this case lies the fundamental legal maxim: "Lex prospicit non respicit," which dictates that the law looks forward, not backward. This principle, also known as the doctrine of non-retroactivity, serves as the basic structure for protecting vested rights those rights that are concluded, completed, and legally enforceable.

The Dispute: The Recruitment (Through Third Party) Act, 2021

The petitioner challenged an advertisement for the posts of Stenographers (BS-14) and Junior Clerks (BS-11), arguing that because the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Recruitment (Through Third Party) Act, 2021 was "revived" by a court judgment on October 30, 2025, all recruitment must now be conducted exclusively through a third party.

However, the Court clarified several critical points:

Prospective Application: When a law is revived, it is ordinarily treated as coming into effect from the date of revival forward, rather than as if it had remained in effect throughout.

Explicit Exceptions: Section 3 of the Act of 2021 specifically excludes posts that were advertised prior to the enforcement of the Act.

Protection of Accrued Rights: Under Article 56-C of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974, the repeal or revival of a law does not affect rights already accrued or things duly done under the previous law.

Procedural Fairness and "Necessary Parties"

A significant reason for the petition’s dismissal was the failure to include the 1,500 candidates who had already applied for the advertised posts. The Court ruled that these candidates were "necessary parties," as any order passed in their absence would violate their fundamental rights. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.

Please find the full judgment below:

How BAK Chambers Can Help You

Navigating the complexities of constitutional and administrative law in Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK) and mainland Pakistan requires specialized expertise. At BAK Chambers, we provide high-calibre legal services designed to protect your rights in civil and commercial matters.

Our team, composed of Barristers and Senior Supreme Court Advocates, is uniquely positioned to assist you in:

Challenging Arbitrary Administrative Actions: If you believe a recruitment process or government decision has unfairly prejudiced your rights.

Constitutional Litigation: Representing clients in Writ Petitions before the High Courts of AJK and Pakistan.

Legal Strategy for Vested Rights: Providing counsel on how legislative changes such as the revival of statutes affect your ongoing legal standing or applications.

Protect your rights today. Resolve your legal matters without borders.

Contact BAK Chambers

For a tailored consultation on your specific circumstances, reach out to our team:

Email: admin@bakchambers.com

Phone/WhatsApp: +92 3390 221621