2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
BUSHRA BIBI Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), DISTRICT SIALKOT and another
| Citation | 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ |
| Parties | BUSHRA BIBI Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), DISTRICT SIALKOT and another |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faqir Muhammad Khokhar and Karamat Nazir Bhandari, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (BUSHRA BIBI Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), DISTRICT SIALKOT and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th December, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 10-12-2003 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No.123 of 2003).
R. 18
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Petitioner was appointed as untrained Drawing Teacher, but her services were terminated on the ground that she had failed to acquire prescribed qualification
Appeal filed by petitioner against order of her termination having been dismissed by Service Tribunal, petitioner had filed petition for leave to appeal before Supreme Court
Petitioner admittedly was not qualified at the time of her appointment, but department had shown grace to permit petitioner to acquire qualification within reasonable time of more than six years, but petitioner had failed to qualify prescribed examination
Impugned order was just and fair to which no exception could be taken
No question of law of public importance being involved within the meaning of Art.212(3) of Constitution, petition was dismissed. Rehmat All Shah v. Secretary, Defence Production Division , Rawalpindi 1990 SCMR 1500 and Harmed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 1185 ref.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 10-12-2003, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.123 of 2003.
2. The petitioner was appointed as untrained Drawing Teacher. Her services were terminated w.e.f. 31-12-2001 on the ground that she had failed to acquire the prescribed qualification. She preferred Service Appeal No.123 of 2003, which was dismissed by the Tribunal through the impugned judgment, dated 1.0-12-2003.
3. The learned counsel argued that there was no requirement of law to acquire requisite qualification for the post within a certain period. Therefore, no objection could be taken if the petitioner had acquired such qualification subsequently to the termination of her service. The learned counsel placed reliance on the cases of Rehmat Ali Shah v. Secretary, Defence Production, Rawalpindi 1990 SCMR 1500 and Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 1185.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also perused the available record. Admittedly the petitioner was not qualified at the time of her appointment. However, the department had shown grace' to permit the petitioner to acquire the qualification within reasonable time of more than six years. She failed to qualify the prescribed examination and it was only after she was terminated from service that claimed to have acquired such qualification in the year 2002. This petition does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The impugned order is just and fair to which no exception can be taken.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this Petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly. H.B.T./B-1/S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.