Case Details

Citation(s)
2021 SLG 2244 2021 SLD 2244 2021 PLJ 21
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.A. No. 241 of 2019, decided on 9.3.2020, Date of hearing: 5.3.2020. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 22.1.2019 in Writ Petition No. 1344 of 2017)
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Mr. Saqib Javed, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. Ilyas Abbasi, Advocate for
Respondent. Mr. Shahzad Shafi, Advocate for Proforma-
Respondents No. 4 & 5.

INSPECTOR GENERAL POLICE AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND 2 OTHErs

VS

SYED SHAHZAD ALI SHAH AND 4 OTHErs

Law: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974

Section: 42(10)

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974 (VIII of 1974)-- ----Art. 42(10)--Filing of writ petition--Allowed--Father of respondent was died during service--Application for appointment as Junior Clerk--Quota reserved for legal heirs of police employees who were died during service--Application was rejected on ground that father of respondent was died before issuance of notification regarding quota--Appointment of two other candidates whose father were died during service--Recommendations of selection committee--Discrimination--Challenge to--Selection Committee it appears that the selection committee recommended one, Muhammad Younas, whose father had died in, the year 2008, but in the very next paragraph of the recommendations rejected the claim of the respondent on the ground that his father was died prior to the issuance of notification dated 16.11.2011--Thus, it becomes clear that discrimination has been made in the case of the respondent--During the course of arguments when this position was confronted to the learned counsel for the appellants he failed to rebut the same and simply stated that one wrong cannot be made a basis for doing another wrong--It is celebrated principle of law that authority who has issued any order or done any act cannot subsequently take stance that order issued or action taken by him is against law--Discrimination is prohibited under Constitution; therefore, respondent is entitled for same treatment as met by other whose case was at par with case of respondent was discriminated, therefore, High Court was fully justified to issue direction for his appointment--Counsel for appellants failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in impugned , hence, interference by this Court is not warranted under law--Appeal was dismissed. JUDGMENT Raja Saeed Akram Khan, J.- This appeal by leave of the Court has been preferred against the judgment of the High Court dated 22.01.2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent, herein, has been accepted. 2. The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent, herein, filed a writ petition before the High Court, alleging therein, that his father, Syed Arif Shah, was…
🔒
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