2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ABDUL JABBAR Versus S.S.P., and others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Syed Jamshed Ali, J |
| Parties | ABDUL JABBAR Versus S.S.P., and others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 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 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Syed Jamshed Ali, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL JABBAR Versus S.S.P., and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- N.A. Butt for Petitioner.
- 2. In this view of the matter; the learned counsel submits that he will be satisfied if an appropriate direction is issued to respondent No. 1 to attend to the pending matter and decide it within a reasonable time limit to be fixed by this Court. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has no objection to the issuance of the direction being prayed for. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No. 1 that the matter pending before him shall be decided within a period of one month in accordance with law under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. This order shall also be conveyed to respondent No. 1 by the learned Additional Advocate‑General.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Civil service‑‑Appointment‑‑‑Petitioner despite Having cleared written test and interview, was refused appointment on ground that Domicile Certificate submitted by him was not a genuine document‑‑‑Petitioner had submitted that he would be satisfied if an appropriate direction was issued to the concerned Authority to attend to pending matter and decide his case within reasonable time limit to be fixed by Court‑‑‑Constitutional petition was disposed of with direction to the Authority that matter pending before it be decided within a period of one month in accordance with law. Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan, Addl. A.‑G.
Judgment & Decree
Writ Petition No. 19920 of 2000 decided on 22nd January, 2001. ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Civil service‑‑Appointment‑‑‑Petitioner despite Having cleared written test and interview, was refused appointment on ground that Domicile Certificate submitted by him was not a genuine document‑‑‑Petitioner had submitted that he would be satisfied if an appropriate direction was issued to the concerned Authority to attend to pending matter and decide his case within reasonable time limit to be fixed by Court‑‑‑Constitutional petition was disposed of with direction to the Authority that matter pending before it be decided within a period of one month in accordance with law. N.A. Butt for Petitioner. Malik Akhtar Hussain Awan, Addl. A.‑G. The petitioner was contender for the post of a Police Constable and according to the averment of the petition he had cleared the written test and the interview. He was, however, refused appointment on the ground that the domicile certificate submitted by him was not a genuine document. It is further averred in the writ petition that instead of seeking verification of the domicile certificate of the petitioner dated 31‑7‑1995, the office of the S.S.P. indicated wrong date of domicile of the petitioner i.e. 31‑7‑1993. In reply, it has been admitted that domicile by the petitioner was dated 31‑7‑1995. The averment in para. 6 that the official concerned indicated wrong date of domicile while seeking verification from the, Deputy Commissioner, has also not been denied in the report and parawise comments. It has further been stated by respondent No. 1 that the case of the petitioner was under inquiry and will be decided strictly in accordance with law.
2. In this view of the matter; the learned counsel submits that he will be satisfied if an appropriate direction is issued to respondent No. 1 to attend to the pending matter and decide it within a reasonable time limit to be fixed by this Court. The learned Additional Advocate‑General has no objection to the issuance of the direction being prayed for. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to respondent No. 1 that the matter pending before him shall be decided within a period of one month in accordance with law under intimation to the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of this Court. This order shall also be conveyed to respondent No. 1 by the learned Additional Advocate‑General. H.B.T./A‑533/L Order accordingly.