| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1962 SLG 2852 = 1962 SLD 2852 = 1962 PLD 367 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Writ Petition No. 3 of 1962, decided on 4th May 1962.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Hamoodur Rahman, J
Nasim Hasan Shah Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Meraj-ud-Din Chaudhry Attorney for Petitioners.
Respondents: Not represented. Date of hearing : 4th May 1962.
Writ Petition No. 3 of 1962, decided on 4th May 1962.
Presented By: A. R. Cornelius, C. J. and Hamoodur Rahman, J
Nasim Hasan Shah Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Meraj-ud-Din Chaudhry Attorney for Petitioners.
Respondents: Not represented. Date of hearing : 4th May 1962.
MUHAMMAD ATHAR AND 12 OTHERS ---Petitioners
VERSUS
PAKISTAN AND 12 OTHERS----Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1956
Section: Art. 170.
(In the matter of a writ petition under Article 2 (4) of the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1958). Writ - Mandamus----Writ of "discretion" - Lashes -Writ applied for 12 years after cause for complaint arose Refused-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170. Writ--Mandaraus-Writ not available for obtaining "expedition" of orders by Government in administrative matter Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170. Government servant---Seniority-Statutory rules non-exist ent-Government "directions" and "principles" followed from time to time of `fluid character" --Government's power to vary its previous orders "undoubted"-Supreme Court declined to interfere by mandamus with placements of' officers in seniority listMandamus issued against Government only in case of "clear" violation of something "having force of law"--Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 170-[Pakistan v. Abdul Hamid P L D 1961 S C 105 ref.]. JUDGMENT CORNELIUS, C. J.------In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are a group of members of the Pakistan Police Service who were appointed as the result of an examination held in the year 1949. They may be described as the Competitioner Group. The respondents are firstly, the State of Pakistan, and with it, twelve members of the same Service, who were appointed other wise than by examination, and are the "ad hoc" appointees. The claim is for a writ of mandamus, addressed to the State, com manding the State,- not to treat the ad hoc appointees as members of the Pakistan Police Service ; to cancel the orders whereby the act hoc appointees have been given seniority above the Competitioner Group ; and to make orders on the representations by the Competi tioner Group, levelled against the said orders, which have been pending for many years. Mandamus is a writ of discretion. The ground on which the Group asks the Court to declare that the ad hoc appointees were never validly appointed is a purely technical one, namely that at the time of their appointment the latter had exceeded the age limit of 24 years laid…