Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 831 2022 SLD 831 2022 PLC 461
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No.45-B of 2014, decision dated: 29-09-2021, hearing date: 29-09-2021
MUHAMMAD NAEEM ANWAR, JUSTICE
Muhammad Tariq Qureshi and Younas Ali Khan Marwat for Petitioners. Saif-ur-Rehman Khattak, A.A.G for Official
Respondents. Muhammad Usman Khan for Private
Respondent.

RIAZ MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER

VS

ASAD ULLAH KHAN AND 19 OTHERS

Law: Specific Relief Act, 1877

Section: 42

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 9,27

(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ---S.42---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9 , 27---Personal security and rule of law---Appointment---Procedure---Accrual of right’s suit against authorities of education department was concurrently decreed against appointments, on ground that the same were without authority and in violation of law’ (appointees) contented that suit was filed without asserting right, without accrual of cause of action, based upon alleged transfer of immovable property against which no service could be claimed; that suit was defective for non-joinder/misjoinder---Validity---E.D.O.(E, SE) was given additional charge for looking after the matters but he could not make any appointment against the posts in question---Recommendations forwarded by inquiry committee against E.D.O.(E, SE) showed that he had violated rules and misused his official powers and was not empowered for any appointment/transfer---On the basis of said inquiry, Secretary Education had imposed upon E.D.O. (E, SE) penalty of withholding of his two annual increments---Appointments of petitioners were without authority and were of no legal effect were initially appointed on fix pay and were not regular employees at the time of institution of respondent’s suit, hence, no right was accrued at that time had opportunity to defend their right and contest the suit but they could not substantiate their version---Concurrent findings of courts below were well-reasoned and legally correct---Where law required doing something in a particular manner it had to be done in the same manner and not otherwise---Authority was incompetent, proper procedure was not adopted, neither the posts were advertised nor applications were invited remained in service/received salary, so principle of locus poenitentiae could not attract---Revision petition was dismissed accordingly. Muhammad Hanif Abbasi v. Imran Khan Niazi PLD 2018 SC 189; Shahida Bibi v. Habib Bank Ltd. PLD 2016 SC 995; Human Rights Cases Nos. 4668 of 2006 and others PLD 2010 SC 759; Muhammad Nadeem Arif v. IGP Punjab Lahore 2011 SCMR 408 and Nadeem Ahmad Panhwar v. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh 2009 PLC (C.S.) 161 ref. (b)…
🔒
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