Case Details

Citation(s)
1999 SLG 781 1999 SLD 781 1999 PLC 93
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1998, decision dated: 13-08-1998. (Onappeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 2-3-1998 inWrit Petition No. 393 of 1997).
BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH AND MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, JJ

UMAR HAYATvsAZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary and 3 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Interpretation of statutes------- Mandatory provision---Once it was accepted that a provision of law was mandatory, then all proceedings taken in violation of that provision were invalid---Mandatory provision must be obeyed strictly while a directory provision could only be substantially complied with. Niaz Muhammad Khan v. Mian Fazal Raqib PLD 1974 SC 134 and Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and 5 others v. Kashmir Timber Corporation, Muzaffarabad and 5 others PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 42 ref. (b) Acquiescence--- ---- Meaning and scope---Ordinary meanings of word "acquiescence" was "consent" either express or implied---There could be no acquiescence unless two ingredients were present: firstly, there should be express or implied abandonment of a right or failure to enforce, it and secondly, act by which acquiescence was inferred should be inconsistent with the right. Ghulam Mustafa v. Azad Government and 2 others 1996 MLD 355; Dr. Habibur Rahman v. The West Pakistan Public Service Commission, Lahore and 4 others PLD 1973 SC 114; Miss Avi J. Cama v. Banwarilal Agarwal and others AIR 1953 Nag. 81; M/s. Globe Textile Mills (O.E.) Limited v. Textile Commissioner, Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan, Karachi and 2 others 1993 SCMR 900 and Mansab Ali v. Amir and 3 others PLD 1971 SC 124 ref. Abdul Rashid Abbasi, Advocate for Appellant. Raja Shiraz Kayani, Advocate-General for Respondents Nos to 3 Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, Advocate for Respondent No. 4. Date of hearing: 9th July, 1998. JUDGMENT BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J. ---Appellant Umer Hayat filed a writ petition in the High Court for enforcement of the regional quota in respect of two posts of Mechanical Engineers in the Public Works Department of the Government. The writ petition has been dismissed by the High Court on the ground that quota is a rule of convenience, not a right, and that it is an exception to general rules of fair and open competition, not a rule itself. The appellant was granted leave to appeal. Appellant Umer Hayat is a refugee from Baramulla. He was working as Mechanical Engineer on ad hoc basis when the Public Service Commission issued an advertisement inviting…
🔒
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