2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
BASHARAT ALI Versus E.D.O. EDUCATION, and another
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J |
| Parties | BASHARAT ALI Versus E.D.O. EDUCATION, and another |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (BASHARAT ALI Versus E.D.O. EDUCATION, and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Murtaza Chaudhry for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199 & 212
Constitutional petition
Appointment on contract basis
Petitioner was appointed on contract basis for three years
Services of petitioner having been terminated, he had filed constitutional petition against said order
Contractual service could be terminated and termination order could not be challenged by way of filing constitutional petition
Jurisdiction of High Court being barred by Art.212 of the Constitution, constitutional petition against order of termination of service, was not maintained. M. Enver Shaukat v. Federation of Pakistan and another 1980 Law Notes (Lahore 752); Muhammad Ramzan Ansari v. Government of Pakistan and others (1983 PLC (C.S.) 52); 1987 MLD 153; Major (Retd.) Khalilur Rehman v. Overseas Pakistanis Foundation and another 1984 CLC 2168 and Muzaffar Hussain v. The Superintendent of Police District Sialkot 2002 PLC (C.S.) 442 ref.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL-E-MIRAN CHAUHAN, J.
Basharat Ali, the petitioner, was appointed as Lab Assistant (BS-1) on contract basis for three years at Government High School, Broia Chak No.36/RB, District Nankana Sahib, vide order, dated 16-8-2006. As per condition No.6 of the Appointment Order, on notice or on payment of one month's pay in lieu thereof on either side without assuming any reason could be terminated.
2. It is argued that; respondent No.2, vide impugned order, dated 16-12-2006, without assuming any reason, terminated/withdrew the appointment order. This act of respondent No.2 is illegal and without lawful authority.
3. Heard. Record perused.
4. At first place, it appears from the impugned order that the order of appointment on contract basis was issued, executed and signed by respondent No.2, being without lawful authority, as the same was issued without getting approval from the District Recruitment, Committee, District Nankana Sahib. Secondly, if at all, it is presumed that the letter of appointment/contract, dated 16-8-2006 was executed/issued correctly, then it is to be seen, as to whether the writ petition is competent to get the agreement enforced by the parties. It is settled law that a contractual obligation cannot be enforced through the writ petitions. Reliance is placed on M. Enver Shaukat v. Federation of Pakistan and another (1980 Law Notes (Lahore 752) and Muhammad Ramzan Ansari v. Government of Pakistan and others 1983 PLC (C.S.)
52. Even otherwise, a contractual service could be terminated and the termination order cannot be challenged by way of tiling writ petitions. On termination of contractual service, remedy lies for damages and not a writ petition, as the employer cannot be compelled to employ against his will. Reliance is placed on 1987 MLD 153 and Major (Retd.) Khalilur Rehman v. Overseas Pakistanis Foundation and another 1984 CLC 2168.
5. So far as the maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, the jurisdiction of this Court is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Thus, on account of bar of Article 212, the constitutional petition is not maintainable, it was not necessary to examine the question regarding maintainability of the writ petition, in case of withdrawal of the appointment order/letter, said to have been issued without lawful authority, without prior approval of the District Recruitment Committee of the District. Reliance is placed on Muzaffar Hussain v. The Superintendent of Police, District Sialkot (2002 PLC (C.S.) 442).
6. In this view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed in limine, being not maintainable under the law. H.B.T./B-1/L Petition dismissed.