Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 1686 2026 SLD 1686 = 2026 PLJ 209
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 23267 of 2025, heard on 13.1.2026.
Presented By: Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J.
Mr. Muhammad Umar Sharif, Advocate/Legal Advisor for Pakistan Railways, Mr. Muhammad Zain Qazi, Assistant Attorney General along with Dr. Sumera Rana, Divisional Medical Officer, Pakistan Railways Lahore Division for
Respondents. Date of hearing: 13.1.2026.

MARYAM--Petitioner

VERSUS

PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through its Chief Executive Office, Lahore etc.--Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199 ; 4,24

PLJ 2026 Lahore 209 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Constitution petition--Seeking direction for issuance of appointment letter--Prime Minister’s Assistant Package benefit to family of employee were die during service--Qualified interview & written trust--Selection of petitioner finalized--Letter of appointment was withheld under pronouncement of Supreme Court of Pakistan--Past & closed transaction--Retrospective effects--Once a selection process is completed, it cannot be undone arbitrarily--Doctrines of promissory estoppel--It is a settled principle of law that once a selection process was completed in a lawful and ordinary manner, it could not be undone arbitrarily--Any subsequent lapse or delay in completing a clerical or inconsequential formality did not render process incomplete, as a vested right accrues in favour of selected candidate--Issuance of an appointment letter is a consequential and ministerial act, and valuable right so created could not be withdrawn to detriment of petitioner--Principle is that when one party, by words or conduct, made a clear and definite promise to another, intending or knowing that promise would be relied upon, and other party actually relies on it, maker of promise is bound by it--Promisor could not withdraw promise if doing so would be unfair, regardless of whether any prior legal relationship existed between parties--Executive actions taken under a valid and subsisting policy continue to hold field so long as policy remains operative, and rights accrued thereunder could not be unsettled merely on account of a subsequent change in law or judicial pronouncement--This protection, however, would not extend to cases where appointment process had not attained finality, where selection was merely provisional, or where a subsisting judicial restraint order expressly barred such appointments at relevant time--Petition allowed.                                [Pp. 212, 213 & 214] A, B & D Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Arts. 4…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register