2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
CHAIRMAN, ANTI-CORRUPTION ENQUIRIES and another Versus ABDUL WAHEED
| Citation | 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ |
| Parties | CHAIRMAN, ANTI-CORRUPTION ENQUIRIES and another Versus ABDUL WAHEED |
| Primary Law | Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Abdul Hameed Dogar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (CHAIRMAN, ANTI-CORRUPTION ENQUIRIES and another Versus ABDUL WAHEED). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----R. 3---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Appointment---Counsel for petitioner/Department had contended that absorption/appointment of respondent was not made through Departmental Promotion Committee, but he was not able to point out any provisions or rule of service governing the service of the respondent that case of appointment of respondent required approval/selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee--Respondent, undisputedly was appointed by transfer from Police Department to Anti-Corruption Establishment in BS-5 which was within relevant Service Rules---In absence of any violation of statutory rules or any exercise of authority beyond the power and jurisdiction of department, it was difficult to hold that department acted illegally or without jurisdiction---Service Tribunal had elaborately discussed the questions of fact agitated in the appeal and defended by the petitioners---No substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Art.212(3) of the Constitution having been made out for grant of leave to appeal, petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
- Dr. Qazi Khalid Ali, Addl. A.G., Sindh and A.A. Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- 2. We have heard learned Additional Advocate-General who vehemently agitated that the absorption/appointment of the respondent was not made through Departmental, Promotion Committee but he has not been able to point out any provision or rule of service governing the service of the respondent that the case of appointment of the respondent required approval/selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is not disputed that the respondent was appointed by transfer from Police Department to Anti-Corruption Establishment in BS-5 which was within the competence of petitioner No.2 under the Service Rules of 1991. In the absence of any violation of statutory rules, or any exercise of authority beyond the power and jurisdiction of petitioner No.2, it is difficult to hold that petitioner No.2 acted illegally or without jurisdiction. Learned Law Officer has not been able to point out if the approval of petitioner No.1 was required for absorption of a member of service in BS-5. Indeed the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the questions of fact agitated in the appeal and defended by the petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of High Court of Sindh, Karachi, dated 4-12-2006 passed in Appeal No.350 of 2005).
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment dated 4-10-2006 passed by Sindh Service Tribunal allowing respondent's service appeal against departmental order dated 24-9-2004 whereby his permanent absorption/appointment by transfer as Constable in Anti-Corruption Establishment made by the competent authority vide order dated 10-4-2004 by petitioner No.2 i.e. Director Anti-Corruption Establishment Sindh was withdrawn.
2. We have heard learned Additional Advocate-General who vehemently agitated that the absorption/appointment of the respondent was not made through Departmental, Promotion Committee but he has not been able to point out any provision or rule of service governing the service of the respondent that the case of appointment of the respondent required approval/selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is not disputed that the respondent was appointed by transfer from Police Department to Anti-Corruption Establishment in BS-5 which was within the competence of petitioner No.2 under the Service Rules of 1991. In the absence of any violation of statutory rules, or any exercise of authority beyond the power and jurisdiction of petitioner No.2, it is difficult to hold that petitioner No.2 acted illegally or without jurisdiction. Learned Law Officer has not been able to point out if the approval of petitioner No.1 was required for absorption of a member of service in BS-5. Indeed the Tribunal has elaborately discussed the questions of fact agitated in the appeal and defended by the petitioners.
3. In our considered opinion no substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution is made out for grant of leave which is accordingly refused and petition dismissed. H.B.T/C-10/SC Leave refused.