| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 399 2023 SLD 399 2023 PLC 182 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 3 of 2019, decided on 11th August, 2021. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 13.11.2018 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No. 3101-P of 2018)
GULZAR AHMED, C.J., SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI AND JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JJ
Muhammad Asif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 in person.
Civil Petition No. 3 of 2019, decided on 11th August, 2021. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 13.11.2018 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Writ Petition No. 3101-P of 2018)
GULZAR AHMED, C.J., SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI AND JAMAL KHAN MANDOKHAIL, JJ
Muhammad Asif Yousafzai, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Respondent No. 1 in person.
ATTAULLAH KHAN
VERSUS
ALI AZAM AFRIDI and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil service--- ----Upgradation of post from BPS-20 to BPS-21 against policy of the Provincial Government---Petitioner was thrice upgraded, firstly when the post of LAN Administrator, Provincial Assembly was upgraded from BPS-18 to BPS-19 and the same was re-designated as Director Automation and IT; secondly when the post of Director Automation and IT was upgraded from BPS-19 to BPS-20 and the petitioner was promoted to the upgraded post; lastly, the nomenclature of the said post was substituted as Special Secretary/Director IT and the same was upgraded to BPS-21 and the petitioner for the third time was upgraded to BPS-21---Provincial Assembly had promulgated the Upgradation Policy (vide notification dated 29-08-2011) for its employees---Said Policy specifically stated that personal upgradation shall be made once during the whole service periods, and that no such upgradation shall be made infavour of such employees or individual whose posts have once personally (been) upgraded either before or after promulgation of the policy---Three consecutive upgradations given to the petitioner were clearly in violation of the said Policy---High Court had rightly declared the upgradation of post of the petitioner from BPS-20 to BPS-21 as void, coram non-judice and without any lawful authority---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. (b) Administration of justice--- ----When a statute/law described or required a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all. Taylor v. Taylor (1876) Ch.D. 426 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199(1)(b)(ii)---Writ of quo warranto---Scope and purpose---Writ of quo warranto was issued by the courts to judicially review situations against a person when he assumed an office for which he had no entitlement---Writ of quo warranto was an effective measure to prevent people from taking over public offences when they did not qualify for the same. (d) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199(1)(b)(ii)---Writ of quo warranto---Scope---No prohibition existed in law as to who could file a writ of quo warranto, however, the power to issue such writ was discretionary and…
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