Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 2000 1991 SLD 2000 1991 PLC 1047
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 8508 of 1990, heard on 19th May, 1991.
TANVIR AHMAD KHAN, J
Talat Farooq Sh. for Petitioners. Aftab Iqbal Ch. Dy. A.G. and Yawar Ali Khan, Standing Counsel for
Respondents.

Sheikh MUDASSAR AHMAD

VS

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 2 others Sheikh MUDASSAR AHMAD vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 2 others

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Arts. 199, 212, 4 & 25---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4(1)--­Petitioners' appointment on recommendation of Prime Minister Secretariat/Placement Bureau against substantive vacancies on ad hoc basis to posts carrying B.P.S. 9 to B.P.S: 14---Petitioners' services were terminated on a Cabinet decision without application of independent mind ---Validity--­Jurisdiction of High Court to grant relief to petitioners---Normally policy decisions of the Government were not open to judicial review under Art.199 of the Constitution as under the scheme of the Constitution, Executive has to be given complete power to formulate its own policy---Position would, however, be different where policy decision adversely affected the vested right of a citizen in which power of interference by the High Court through judicial review would be attracted---Vested rights of petitioners having been affected through the impugned decision of Cabinet, jurisdiction of High Court was clearly attracted under Art.199 of the Constitution---Petitioners' services having been terminated simply on the direction of Cabinet and some of the appointees similarly appointed having been retained in service, petitioners had been meted out a discriminatory treatment without any justifiable cause---Orders terminating services of petitioners were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Petitioners were appointed against substantive vacancies after they satisfied the requirement of qualifications for their respective jobs. It is nobody's case that either the petitioners lacked requisite qualifications or the departmental authority who had appointed them lacked competence to do so. The only objection taken on merit was that they were appointed by previous regime in clear violation of rules and regulations and without recourse to the departmental selection committee. The bar of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution is not absolute. It is co-extensive with the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal i.e. the jurisdiction of the High Court is only excluded in those cases which fall within the purview of Service Tribunal. Under section…
🔒
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