2004 PLP 279 (SCMR)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SARWARI BEGUM — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 279 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SARWARI BEGUM — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 279 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 279 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 279 (SCMR) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. SARWARI BEGUM — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Sharif Butt, Advocate Supreme Court and Rao M. Yusuf, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing: 6th May, 2003.
- 2. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Butt, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioners and contended that the learned High Court has no jurisdiction relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants in the light of provisions as contained in Article 212. of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and judgment impugned is liable to be set aside on this score alone. It is next contended that learned High Court has transgressed its Constitutional jurisdiction as controversial disputes could not be resolved without recording evidence.
- 3. We have carefully examined the judgment dated 15-4-1999 by the learned Single Judge in Chambers and judgment impugned. The main contention of the respondents in Writ Petition (No. 1450 of 1997) was that the appointment should be made in accordance with law and merits and the Authorities concerned be constrained from making appointments on extraneous considerations. The writ of mandamus has rightly been issued by the learned Single Judge in Chambers directing that no appointment should be made for extraneous considerations by ignoring the merit as determined by the Department whereby the summary for appointment of the respondent was approved by the Competent Authority on 10-5-1997 which could not have been kept pending on the basis of bureaucratic bottle necks created by the Deputy District Officer, Gujranwala. The learned Advocate Supreme Court when confronted with this position with specific reference to the summary prepared by the Department itself and duly approved by the Competent Authority on 10-5-1997, no plausible justification could be furnished for its non- implementation/non-compliance by the Deputy District Education Officer, Gujranwala. It is not the case of Government that no such summary , was ever prepared and approval whereof was also not challenged. All the contentions raised before the learned High Court have been dilated upon and decided vide judgment impugned, -relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:--
- "3. We have considered the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate-General and perused the record ourselves.
- 4. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned High Court being well-based does not warrant any interference. It is worth mentioning that no question of terms and conditions of service ousting the Constitutional jurisdiction of the learned High Court was involved in the matter as pressed time and again by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners. No question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave could be granted. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 30-1-2001 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in I.C.A. No.435 of 1999).
Arts.185(3) & 212
Non-implementation of summary for appointment of civil servant approved by Competent Authority on merits
High Court accepted Constitutional petition of civil servant directing the Authority not to make appointment for extraneous considerations by ignoring merits as determined by Competent Authority, and that such summary could not be kept pending on the basis of bureaucratic bottle-necks created by the Authority
Case of the Authority was not that no such summary had ever been prepared
Approval of summary had not been challenged
No question of terms and conditions of service ousting Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court was involved in the matter
Findings of High Court well-based did not warrant any interference
No question of law of public importance was involved in the matter
Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30-1-2001 passed by learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of Province of the Punjab (petitioner) has been dismissed and order dated 15-4-1999 passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers was upheld.
2. Mr. Muhammad Sharif Butt, learned Advocate Supreme Court appeared on behalf of petitioners and contended that the learned High Court has no jurisdiction relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants in the light of provisions as contained in Article 212. of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and judgment impugned is liable to be set aside on this score alone. It is next contended that learned High Court has transgressed its Constitutional jurisdiction as controversial disputes could not be resolved without recording evidence.
3. We have carefully examined the judgment dated 15-4-1999 by the learned Single Judge in Chambers and judgment impugned. The main contention of the respondents in Writ Petition (No. 1450 of 1997) was that the appointment should be made in accordance with law and merits and the Authorities concerned be constrained from making appointments on extraneous considerations. The writ of mandamus has rightly been issued by the learned Single Judge in Chambers directing that no appointment should be made for extraneous considerations by ignoring the merit as determined by the Department whereby the summary for appointment of the respondent was approved by the Competent Authority on 10-5-1997 which could not have been kept pending on the basis of bureaucratic bottle necks created by the Deputy District Officer, Gujranwala. The learned Advocate Supreme Court when confronted with this position with specific reference to the summary prepared by the Department itself and duly approved by the Competent Authority on 10-5-1997, no plausible justification could be furnished for its non- implementation/non-compliance by the Deputy District Education Officer, Gujranwala. It is not the case of Government that no such summary , was ever prepared and approval whereof was also not challenged. All the contentions raised before the learned High Court have been dilated upon and decided vide judgment impugned, -relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "
3. We have considered the contentions of the learned Additional Advocate-General and perused the record ourselves. It is an admitted fact that, during the pendency of the writ petition, appellants recommended the respondent for the post in question. It is a settled principle of law that nobody is allowed to approbate and reprobate. The appointment cannot wriggle out from the situation. Therefore, the impugned order is valid in the eye of law. As per law laid own by the Honourable Supreme Court in case reported Haji Ghulam Rasool and others v. The Chief Administrator of Auqaf, West Pakistan PLD 1971 SC 376, the contentions of the learned counsel of the appellants have no force. The learned Single Judge directed the appellants to act in accordance with their own recommendations and issue appointment letter to the respondent w.e.f. -10-5-1997 i.e. the date when her summary for appointment was duly approved by the Authority concerned."
4. The conclusion as arrived at by the learned High Court being well-based does not warrant any interference. It is worth mentioning that no question of terms and conditions of service ousting the Constitutional jurisdiction of the learned High Court was involved in the matter as pressed time and again by the learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners. No question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave could be granted. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused. S. A. K./P-112/S Leave refused.