Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 1734 2008 SLD 1734 2008 SCMR 948
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.1986 of 2006, decision dated: 28-02-2008.(On appeal from the judgment, dated 4-7-2006 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.1087 of 2006)
M. JAVED BUTTAR, MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SH. HAKIM ALI, JJ
Asghar Ahmad Kharl, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants.
Respondent in Person

SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION and others

VS

MUHAMMAAD SALEEM

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Part-VII, Chaps.1, 2, 3, 3-A & 4 [Arts.175-212-B]---Superior Courts, jurisdiction of---Scope---Jurisdictions vested with apex and superior Courts are general, wider in scope and extent, while constraints/ prohibitions are narrower in their applications and dimensions---Jurisdiction of superior Courts is to be stretched to take into its folds all disputes to be resolved while limitation of jurisdictions and powers are to be squeezed and kept to minimum extent and length---Such is the rule of interpretation of jurisdiction, scope and limitations of superior Courts in Pakistan. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Arts. 185(3) & 212(3)---Civil service---Question of law of public importance---Respondent was serving in Income Tax Department and he was not considered for promotion on the ground that Performance Evaluation Reports for a specified period were not genuine---High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction directed the department to get the Performance Evaluation Reports completed by another officer who had been sometime superior officer of the respondent---Validity---Case of the respondent was of special and exceptional nature, as the senior of respondent was admittedly biased and not independent to evaluate his performance due to commencement of criminal proceedings amongst them, therefore, direction issued by High Court was apt in the circumstances of the case---Law had provided that it was the duty of department to get prepared Performance Evaluation Reports of an officer to keep and maintain the same, so that it could be used for the other prescribed purposes and at the time of promotion of the concerned official---Department, at the relevant juncture, was negligent in its duty to get prepared the Performance Evaluation Reports of respondent, therefore, respondent having no alternate remedy was right to beseech indulgence of High Court through its constitutional jurisdiction, as the department was bent upon to deprive the right of its own officer, due to its own inaction---Direction issued by High Court could not be considered to be violation of provisions of Art. 212 of the Constitution in…
🔒
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