1987 PLP 1151 (SCMR)
SARGODHA through its Chairman‑‑Petitioner Versus IJAZ MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1151 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Service matter‑‑Termination from service declared by High Court to be of no legal effect‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea that at time of appointment respondent was over‑age, not sustained because competent authority had relaxed age limit in his case and his appointment could not be called in question on that ground‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑Civil service. |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | SARGODHA through its Chairman‑‑Petitioner Versus IJAZ MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1151 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 1151 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Service matter‑‑Termination from service declared by High Court to be of no legal effect‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea that at time of appointment respondent was over‑age, not sustained because competent authority had relaxed age limit in his case and his appointment could not be called in question on that ground‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑Civil service. bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1151 (SCMR) (SARGODHA through its Chairman‑‑Petitioner Versus IJAZ MUHAMMAD and another‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. .
- Date of hearing: 21st April, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court passed on 4‑2‑1987 in Writ Petition No. 2186 of 1986). (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art 185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal grant of‑‑Fresh plea‑‑Plea not taken by petitioner in High Court, held, could not be advanced for first time in Supreme Court. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Service matter‑‑Termination from service declared by High Court to be of no legal effect‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea that at time of appointment respondent was over‑age, not sustained because competent authority had relaxed age limit in his case and his appointment could not be called in question on that ground‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑[Civil service].
Judgment & Decree
(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ‑‑‑Arts. 185(3) & 199‑‑Service matter‑‑Termination from service declared by High Court to be of no legal effect‑‑Order impugned‑‑Plea that at time of appointment respondent was over‑age, not sustained because competent authority had relaxed age limit in his case and his appointment could not be called in question on that ground‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑[Civil service]. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. . Date of hearing: 21st April, 1987. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order, dated 4‑2‑1987 of the Lahore High Court whereby the order of termination of service of respondent No. l was declared to be of no legal effect.
2. In support of this petition, it is stated that the High Court has not taken into account the following circumstances, namely; (1) the Selection Committee which recommended the appointment of respondent No.1 was not properly constituted, and (2) at the time of his appointment, respondent No.1 was over‑age.
3. It is to be noticed that the plea with regard to improper constitution of the Selection Committee was not taken by the petitioner in the High Court. It cannot, therefore, be advanced for the first time in this Court. As regards the second circumstances, it is not denied that the Commissioner had relaxed the age limit in the case of respondent No.1. His competence in this regard is not disputed. That being so, the appointment of respondent No.1 could not be called in question on this ground. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. M.I. /T‑10/S Petition dismissed.