1987 PLP 418 (SCMR)
WALAYAT HUSSAIN RAJA‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 418 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine whether Service Tribunal was not justified (i) in basing its decision on seniority on Establishment Division's Office Memorandum which did not exist at relevant time; (ii) in holding that appointments under para. 6 of O.M. of 1975 were subject to any quota and (iii) in accepting the position that appointment of Officers under para. 4 of O.M. of 1975 could be made in excess of departmental quota prescribed by Rules.‑‑Civil service. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | WALAYAT HUSSAIN RAJA‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 418 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 418 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine whether Service Tribunal was not justified (i) in basing its decision on seniority on Establishment Division's Office Memorandum which did not exist at relevant time; (ii) in holding that appointments under para. 6 of O.M. of 1975 were subject to any quota and (iii) in accepting the position that appointment of Officers under para. 4 of O.M. of 1975 could be made in excess of departmental quota prescribed by Rules.‑‑Civil service. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 418 (SCMR) (WALAYAT HUSSAIN RAJA‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Fazal Ellahi Siddiqi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Destagir Khan Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 8th December, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 1‑7‑1985 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No.98(R)/83 of 1983). ‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑Leave to appeal granted to examine whether Service Tribunal was not justified (i) in basing its decision on seniority on Establishment Division's Office Memorandum which did not exist at relevant time; (ii) in holding that appointments under para. 6 of O.M. of 1975 were subject to any quota and (iii) in accepting the position that appointment of Officers under para. 4 of O.M. of 1975 could be made in excess of departmental quota prescribed by Rules.‑‑[Civil service].
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑ Leave is sought against the' order dated 1st July, 1985 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 98 (R) of 1983 on the grounds:‑ (a) That the Service Tribunal was not justified in basing its decision on seniority on Establishment Division's O.M.1/2/75‑ARC, dated 13‑i1‑1976 which had already been replaced by Establishment Division O.M. No.10/1/74‑C.III (A), dated 17‑2‑1979. Thus the base of decision on an Office Memorandum which did not exist at the time of the preparation of seniority list, is wholly erroneous in law; (b) That the Service Tribunal was not justified in holding that the appointment under para 6 of the O.M. of 1975 were subject to any quota. In this connection it is contended that this Court has already granted leave to appeal to consider this very point in Civil Petition No. 695‑R of 1985 titled Fazal‑e‑Kadir v. Secretary Establishment Division and others; (c) That the Service Tribunal was not justified in accepting the position that appointment of Officers under para 4 of the O.M. of 1975 could be made in excess of departmental quota prescribed by Rules. 2.We have examined the points inter alia raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this petition leave to appeal is granted. To be heard along with appeals arising out of Civil Petitions Nos. 695‑R to 697‑R of 1983, in which leave was granted on the 3rd November, 1984. S.Q./4393/S Leave granted.