Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLD 2544
Islamabad High Court
Date of Hearing        :      07.04.2023
Presented By: ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR
W.P. No.523/2022                           Petitioners by           :      Mr Abid Mehmood, Advocate.                          
Respondents by        : Mr Khalid Mehmood Dhoon, Asstt. Attorney General. Mr Naseem Hassan Shah, Advocate. Ms Amna Ali, Advocate. Mr Shabbir Ahmed, Suptd. (Legal), M/o NHSR&C.

Dr Shamoona Naqvi & 4 others  

VERSUS

  Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations & Coordination & 3 others  

Law:

Section:

ORDER SHEET                      Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J.-  The instant petition is in the nature of quo-warranto. The petitioners, through the instant petition have questioned the appointment of respondent No.4 (Dr Asman Shaheen) as Surgeon (Obstetrics & Gyneacology) in the Federal Government Polyclinic, Islamabad.    Succinctly, the facts are that, respondent No.4 was serving as Medical Superintendent (BS-19) in the Pakistan Railways Hospital, Karachi. She was allowed deputation under the wed-lock policy against the vacant post of Surgeon (Obstetrics & Gyneacology) in the Federal Government Polyclinic, Islamabad by the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulation & Coordination vide notification, dated 04.02.2022, initially for a period of three years. The petitioners have assailed the appointment on the ground that it was in violation of S.R.O. 1134(I)(2018), dated 10.09.2018 (the “SRO”) as respondent No.4 does not possess the requisite qualification and experience.    The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that; the appointment is in violation of the SRO; respondent No.4 never served as Associate Surgeon; respondent No.4 lacks the requisite qualification and experience to hold the post of Surgeon (Obstetrics & Gyneacology); the appointment is in violation of rules governing deputation; the department is trying to facilitate respondent No.4 and this fact is evident from filing of three different comments on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, which is not admissible under the law; the appointment ought to have been made on temporary basis till the joining of a regular incumbent and not for a fixed term; the husband of respondent No.4 is not a government servant, therefore, she cannot take benefit of the wed-lock policy; the appointment is illegal and without lawful authority; respondent No.4 was not eligible to be appointed; reliance has been placed on the cases titled “Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, ?Sindh and others” [2013 SCMR 1752], “The Chairman Board of Governors, Medical Teaching Institute…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register