| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1995 SLG 1579 1995 SLD 1579 1995 PLC 1221 |
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No. D-352 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 883 of 1994, decided on 8th February, 1995.
WAJIHUDDIN AHMED AND GHULAM HAIDER LAKHO, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Constitutional Petition No. D-352 and Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 883 of 1994, decided on 8th February, 1995.
WAJIHUDDIN AHMED AND GHULAM HAIDER LAKHO, JJ
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Dr. SHAKEEL AHMAD
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others
Law:
Section:
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Arts. 199 & 212---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4---Civil service---Constitutional petition under Art 199 of the Constitution---Civil servant was required to proceed on earned leave without his consent--Validity--Civil servant claimed that order in question, being not final, High Court had jurisdiction to declare such order to be of no legal effect ---Order in question, was, however, final, therefore, manifestly challengeable before Service Tribunal. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Arts. 199 & 212---Civil service---Exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, under Art 199 of the Constitution---Exceptions---Orders tainted with mala fides or suffering from absence of jurisdiction or those attracting coram non judice concept were amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction---In matters touching such issues powers of judicial review could never be taken away---Such broad proposition was, however, itself subject to Constitutional constraints; firstly, ouster clause in a sub-Constitutional legislation could not equate with order of Court's jurisdiction under the Constitution itself, and when latter was the case (ouster of jurisdiction) interference, if any, was necessarily to be more circumspect; secondly, Constitutional jurisdiction of superior Courts was always to be exercised in aid of and not for perpetuating injustice and power being discretionary, in appropriate cases even where such rule was attracted, relief could be declined---Plea of mala fides or want of jurisdiction should be real and not palpably sham or illusory---All necessary details, demonstrating colourable exercise of power, have to be spelled out, and then closely examined before interference in such matters---Where Constitution itself has barred recourse to superior Courts; even then interference would be exception rather than the rule---Matter in question, being within exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunal, that forum could not be by-passed---High Court would refrain to exercise jurisdiction in such matter. Abdul Bari v. Government of Pakistan and 2 others PLD 1981 Kar. 290; The State v. Zia-ur-Rehman, PLD 1973…
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