Case Details

Citation(s)
1957 SLG 57 1957 SLD 57 1957 PLD 487
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 309 of 1956, decided on 16th April 1957, under Article 170 of the Constitution of Pakistan. dates of hearing : 26th and 27th March 1957
S. A. RAHMAN, C, J AND AKHLAQUE HUSAIN, J
Karam Elahi Chauhan for Petitioner. S. A. Mahmood, A.A.G. for
Respondent

Syed MUHAMMAD AYYUB (P.S.E.I. Executive Engineer, Irrigation)

VS

THE GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 180(b),182(2),170,182

Constitution of Pakistan----- -----Arts. 180 (b) and 182 (2)­Government servant holding office during "pleasure of Governor" -"Pleasure" not arbitrary or capricious-Subject to Rules­ Power to suspend-Not absolute or unfettered-Rule 13'25, Manual of Administration, P. W. D., Irrigation Branch­ Suspension against provisions of-Remedy by writ in High Court-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 170-Quarae: Whether remedy also lies in Civil Court. Held, that the "pleasure" of the Governor has been expressly made by the Constitution subject to the rules which he is required to make under Article 182 and that ultimately his "pleasure" would be operative only to such extent as the rules, which have to be made in accordance with the directions con­tained in the Article, may permit or in the cases specified in the first proviso. Again, it would hardly be possible to argue that an Act of the appropriate legislature dealing with the conditions of service would not, under Article 182, be binding on the Government ; and apparently the intention of the Article is to place the rules on the same level as such an Act. Under the Pakistan Constitution the pleasure of either the President or of the Governor is not unlimited and un­fettered. The Constitution of Pakistan does not say, directly or in­directly that the rules framed under Article 182 are only for general guidance. It expressly says that the conditions of service apparently both from the point of view of the Government as well as of its servants shall be such as laid down by the rules. Venkata Rao v. Secretary of State A I R 1937 P C 31, distinguished. Shenton v. Smith 1895 A C 229, and Gould v. Stuart 1896 A C 575 ref. Apart from an express rule as to suspension (e.g. Rule 13'25, Manual of Administration, P. W. D. Irrigation Branch) such of the pleasure of the Government which has not been taken away by the Constitution or by the rules thereunder-must be deemed to include the power of suspension within reasonable limits. The High Court will not interfere with the exercise of that power so as to substitute its own for that of the Government. It is not concerned with the question whether the power has been correctly or…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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