1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SIKANDER ALI SAMEJO Versus GHULAM MOHAMMED BHAMBHRO AND 3 OTHERS
| Citation | 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Sind |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Chairman, Abdul Kadir and G. A. Mughal Members |
| Parties | SIKANDER ALI SAMEJO Versus GHULAM MOHAMMED BHAMBHRO AND 3 OTHERS |
| Primary Law | Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Sind Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Sind bench comprising: Ghulam Rasool Shaikh, Chairman, Abdul Kadir and G. A. Mughal Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1980 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SIKANDER ALI SAMEJO Versus GHULAM MOHAMMED BHAMBHRO AND 3 OTHERS). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 4‑‑‑‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Scope‑Appointment‑‑Discretion of competent authority on having found fit for appointment to particular post‑‑Cannot be assailed before Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑ S. 4‑‑‑‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Scope‑Appointment‑‑Discretion of competent authority on having found fit for appointment to particular post‑‑Cannot be assailed before Tribunal. GHULAM RASOOL SHAIKH (CHAIRMAN).‑Appellant in person and heard. The appellant has challenged the appointment of Mr. Ghulam Muhammad by initial recruitment on the ground that it was illegal and it also affected his seniority. Neither of the objections raised, by the appellant are entertainable. No provision of law has been pointed out investing the power upon this Tribunal to assail any appointment. It is discretionary with the competent authority' to appoint any body who may be found fit for the post. Even the fitness of a person cannot be assailed before this Tribunal. Again there is nothing to show that Mr. Ghulam Muhammad was not fit to be appointed to the post. As regards seniority we have already held in a number of cases that by virtue of section 8 of Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973, seniority is not a vested right and, therefore, no appeal lies against any order affecting the seniority. Consequently the present appeal is misconceived and not maintainable. It is therefore, summarily dismissed. Appeal dismissed.