| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2014 SLG 204 2014 SLD 204 2014 PLC 759 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petitions Nos. 19428, 19429, 19430 of 2012, 14450 of 2013 and F.A.O. No. 400 of 2013, heard on 20th December, 2013. Date of hearing: 20th December, 2013.
SHEZADA MAZHAR, J
Kh. Umar Masood for Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.19428 to 19430 of 2012). Mian Jaffar Hussain for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 14450 of 2013). Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal for Petitioner (in C.M. No. 7 of 2013 and Writ Petitions Nos.19428 to 19430 of 2
Writ Petitions Nos. 19428, 19429, 19430 of 2012, 14450 of 2013 and F.A.O. No. 400 of 2013, heard on 20th December, 2013. Date of hearing: 20th December, 2013.
SHEZADA MAZHAR, J
Kh. Umar Masood for Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.19428 to 19430 of 2012). Mian Jaffar Hussain for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 14450 of 2013). Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal for Petitioner (in C.M. No. 7 of 2013 and Writ Petitions Nos.19428 to 19430 of 2
MUHAMMAD ATTIQ-UR-REHMAN and others
VS
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment and 4 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Rules of Business (Federal), 1973--- ----Rr. 2(xx), 3(3) & 4(5)---Subordinate Offices of Federal Government---Determination of status of federal government offices---Scope---Any office of federal government other than a Ministry, Division or an attached department is "subordinate office"---Distribution of business or the constitution of the Division is to be notified by the Prime Minister. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 4, 25, 27 & 199---Constitutional petition---Civil service---Promotional examination of government employees---Government servants working under field offices of the Federal Board of Revenue were restrained from participating in the examination---Scope---Contention of the petitioners/government servants was that employees working in the head office of Federal Board of Revenue were eligible whereas those working in the field offices were declared ineligible to appear in the promotional examination and as such the ineligibility criteria was discriminatory---Validity---Ineligibility criteria laid down by the respondent department was clearly discriminatory because in a democratic dispensation a society believing in rule of law there should be no arbitrary policy, decision/administrative orders---All similarly placed persons were entitled to be treated in the similar manner---Notification declaring the petitioner employees working in the field offices as ineligible to appear in the Promotional Examination was illegal and unlawful---Constitutional petition was allowed. Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan and 11 others PLD 1970 SC 453; Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Humayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407; Anjum Pervaiz and 2 others v. General Manager (Operations), Pakistan Railways, Lahore and 4 others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 1280; Sher Muhammad Khan and others v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others 2006 PLC (C.S.) 77; Riaz Hanif Rahi and others v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 1175 and Faiz Bakhsh and others v. Deputy Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer, Bahawalpur and others 2006 SCMR 219 ref. JUDGMENT C.M. No.7 of 2013 SHEZADA…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492