Case Details

Citation(s)
2018 SLG 331 2018 SLD 331 2018 PLJ 297
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 9938 of 2017, hearing Date : 14.6.2017.
SYED MANSOOR ALI SHAH, CHIEF, JUSTICE
Mr. Muhammad Azhar Siddique and Muhammad Rizwan Gujjar, Advocates for Petitioners. Mr. Anwaar Hussain and Ahmad Hasan Khan, Additional Advocates General, Punjab. Hafiz Muhammad Saleem, Advocate for
Respondent No. 12.

MUHAMMAD AHMAD SAMDANI

VS

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitutional Petition--Advertisement for post of project director--Petitioner applied and was not selected--Lack of eligibility criteria--Transparency of appointment process--Validity--There is nothing on record to establish that process of appointment any way was tainted or tailored to promote case of Respondent No. 12. allegations levelled by learned counsel for petitioner are not substantiated by record of case, hence appointment of Respondent No. 12 as Project Director from existing record does not appear to be illegal or based on malafide--Petitioner is an employee of TEVTA, Chairman TEVTA is directed to inquire into matter and if it is found that petitioner is violating law, to proceed strictly against petitioner in accordance with law--Chairman, TEVTA will also submit his report with Registrar of this Court regarding action taken in this regard within three months from today--In case report of Chairman, TEVTA is not received within three months, office will put up this case on administrative side for necessary orders--Petition was dismissed. JUDGMENT Brief facts of the case are that Environmental Protection Agency, Punjab ("EPA") advertised certain posts including the post of Project Director for a scheme launched for the EPA under the name and title of "Capacity Building of EPA Punjab for Enforcement of Environment Standards in Punjab including Combined Effluent Treatment Plants (CETPs) and Industrial Estates (IEs) under J&C Program". It is submitted that petitioner applied for the said post, however, was not selected. Grievance of the petitioner is that process adopted for the appointment of Project Director was not transparent and as a consequence tainted with mala fide. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the entire recruitment process has been tailored to accommodate Respondent No. 12 as a Project Director so that he can maintain control over the Environment Protection Department. He submits that this is evident from the fact that initially the advertisement describes the age of Project Director as 35-55 years and in the corrigendum advertised on 04.02.2017 the age limit of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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