1991 PLP 376 (SCMR)
RAHIM AHMAD — Petitioner Versus N.-W.F.P. SERVICE TRIBUNAL, PESHAWAR and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 376 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | RAHIM AHMAD — Petitioner Versus N.-W.F.P. SERVICE TRIBUNAL, PESHAWAR and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 376 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 376 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 376 (SCMR) (RAHIM AHMAD — Petitioner Versus N.-W.F.P. SERVICE TRIBUNAL, PESHAWAR and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Asghar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1990.
- Muhammad Asghar Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, D.I. Khan (Peshawar) dated 5-12-1988 passed in Appeal No.97 of 1986).
Art. 212(3)
Leave to appeal was granted to examine question of law of public importance, namely that could Service Tribunal completely ignore factual finding of departmental authority and whether finding of Service Tribunal to the effect that "it is established beyond reasonable doubt that promotion order of respondent was temporarily made in his own pay and scale, so in no way it conferred upon respondent seniority over appellant" was manifestly incorrect.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑Leave to appeal is granted under Article 212(3) of the Constitution to examine the following questions of law of public importance:‑‑ (1) Could the Service Tribunal completely ignore the factual finding of departmental authority to the following effect:‑‑ "A departmental examination envisages a number of candidates as well as the holding of an actual examination. It does not appear to have been held. In the present case it was an excuse used for shifting the seniority. Under the circumstances I Find that the appeal of Rahim Ahmad holds merit and his seniority should count from the order of 27‑2‑1980, which places him senior to Abdur Rashid. The appeal is thus, accepted." and sanctify the selection of the respondent No.5 suffering from such a taint? (2) Whether the finding of Service Tribunal to the effect that "it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the promotion order of respondent No.4 was temporarily made in his own pay and scale. So in no way it conferred upon respondent No.4 the seniority over appellant", is manifestly incorrect. H.B.T./R‑145/S Leave granted.