In the landscape of service law in Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK), a recent judgment by the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has redefined the weight of seniority versus statutory educational qualifications. The case of Ajmal Zahid vs. Muhammad Safdar Mir & others (Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2025) serves as a critical reminder for civil servants and departments alike: seniority alone is not a substitute for meeting mandatory eligibility criteria.

The Dispute: A Conflict of Old and New Rules

The controversy began when a Machine Operator (Respondent No. 1) in the Fisheries Department sought a promotion to the post of Junior Clerk (BPS-11). His claim was built on two pillars:

1. His status as the senior-most employee in his cadre.

2. The 2020 Service Rules, which required only an Intermediate qualification.

While the High Court initially ruled in his favour, the appellant, represented by counsel, challenged the decision. It was revealed that the regulatory framework had undergone a substantive shift via a Notification dated 07.04.2021, which enhanced the minimum qualification for a Junior Clerk to a Bachelor’s degree.

The Supreme Court’s Decisive Ruling

The Supreme Court of AJK, led by Mr. Justice Raza Ali Khan and Mr. Justice Khalid Yousaf Chaudhary, set aside the High Court’s judgment based on several key legal principles:

Statutory Qualifications are Mandatory: The Court held that fulfilling prescribed eligibility criteria is a sine qua non (an essential condition) for promotion.

Seniority is Not Absolute: Crucially, the judgment clarified that "Seniority, howsoever long, cannot override statutory qualifications". Even the longest-serving employee cannot claim a promotion if they do not meet the updated educational requirements.

The Importance of Official Gazettes: A major point of contention was whether the 2021 Notification was legally enforceable. By summoning records from the Controller of the Printing Press, the Court confirmed the notification was duly published in the Official Gazette, rendering the respondent’s objections void.

Why This Matters for Your Career

This judgment highlights how easily a legal claim can fail if it is based on repealed or obsolete rules. In this instance, the High Court was initially "misled by suppression of material facts “specifically, the existence of the amended 2021 rules. For employees seeking promotion, it is vital to ensure your qualifications align with the current statutory framework, not just historical practices.

Please find the full judgment below: (may take a few seconds to load)

How BAK Chambers Can Help You Navigate Service Law

At BAK Chambers, we understand that service matters and employment disputes can be life-altering. Whether you are seeking a promotion you are rightfully owed or defending against an unlawful departmental action, our team of Barristers and Senior Supreme Court Advocates provides the specialist expertise needed to win.

Expert Lawyers in Service Litigation:

• Meticulous Legal Research: As seen in the Ajmal Zahid case, identifying a single amended notification can change the entire outcome of a case. We pride ourselves on deep-dive research to ensure your case is built on the most current law.

• Expert Representation: BAK Chambers specialises in civil and commercial litigation, representing clients before the Service Tribunals and the Supreme Court to protect their professional rights.

Don't leave your career to chance. If you are facing issues regarding promotion quotas, eligibility, or departmental inaction, contact BAK Chambers today for a consultation.

Contact Us:

Phone/WhatsApp: +92 3390 221621

Email: admin@bakchambers.com

Protect Your Rights. Resolve Your Legal Matters.