Case Details

Citation(s)
1981 SLG 1644 1981 SLD 1644 = 1981 PLD 75
Peshawar High Court
Write Petition No. 505 of 19771, heard on 4th June, 1980.
Before Mian Burhanuddin Khan, Usman Ali Shah and Sardar Fakhre Alam Khan, JJ
Q. Muhammad Jamil for Appellant. Inayat Elahi Khan, A: G. for the State.

M. KABUT KHAN--Petitioner

VERSUS

CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF GOVERNOR, CADET COLLEGE, KOHAT Arm 2 OTHERS-Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section:

JUDGMENT

 

USMAN ALI SHAH, J.-In the first instance, this writ petition was fixed before a Division Bench of this Court comprising the present Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Sardar Fakhre Alam Khan. In the course of hearing, it was pointed out to their Lordships that there is a .conflict of opinion in two similar cases of two different Division Benches of this Court : (1) Writ Petition No. 511 of 1974 (Rehman Gul v. The Vice-Chancellor of the Peshawar University was disposed of by a Division Bench comprising the former Chief Justice Mr. Justice Abdul Hakeem Khan and Mr. Justice Abdul Ghani Khan Kbattak (Retried) and it was held that writ against the order of a

statutory body would not lie, vide judgment dated 14-115176. (2) Writ Petition No. 170 of 1976 (Muhammad Shoaib Qureshi v. Principal, Cadet College, Kohat), was disposed of by a Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Mian Burhanudd; Khan and myself and we came to the conclusion that as the Cadet college Kohat, is not an institution carrying out its functions for commercial purposes it cannot be said that the relationship of the petitioner with the college which fie was employed would be that of. master and servant. In reaching this conclusion, we were influenced by the: fact that there was nothing in the. North-West Frontier Province Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1971 (Ordinance; III of'.1971) to show that the relationship of the petitioner with the College would be that of master and servant. We, therefore, hold that in this view of the matter the petitioner would -be. deemed as if he was holding public office and thus writ petition would lie in. his case, vide our judgment dated 18-4-1978.

🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register