2015 PLP 328 (GBLR)
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT and others — Petitioners Versus Mrs. HAMIDA — Respondent
| Citation | 2015 PLP 328 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT and others — Petitioners Versus Mrs. HAMIDA — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 328 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 328 (GBLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 328 (GBLR) (PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT and others — Petitioners Versus Mrs. HAMIDA — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Appointment---Candidate, in response to advertisement for appointment of vacant post of EST Teacher in BPS-14, was first in the merit list---Case of the candidate was finally recommended for appointment against vacant post, but appointing authority did not issue appointment orders---Chief Court accepting writ petition of the candidate, directed the authorities to appoint her against the said post---Validity---Said petition having been filed with delay of three days, was time barred---No application for condonation of delay had been filed by the authorities---Advocate-General had urged that since candidate had committed fraud in collusion with the then Deputy Director and Director of Education, no limitation would run against the authorities---No plea of fraud had been taken in written comments, rather all the grounds taken, had been admitted and the written comments were filed by the petitioners/authorities---Point of fraud raised by the Advocate-General, was devoid of substance, in circumstances---Petition for leave to appeal being time-barred, was dismissed in circumstances.
- Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan for Petitioners.
- Ali Nazar, Advocate-on-Record.
- 5. This petition for leave to appeal submitted by the respondents has been submitted after lapse of three days in limitation as such it is time barred. No application for condonation has been submitted by the respondent but the learned Advocate General urges that, since the petitioner committed fraud in collusion with the then Deputy Director and Director of Education as such no Limitation runs against the petitioner.
- 7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the point of fraud raised by the learned Advocate General having devoid of substance. The petition for leave to appeal is time barred. Hence dismissed. File.
Headnotes / Summary
Candidate, in response to advertisement for appointment of vacant post of EST Teacher in BPS-14, was first in the merit list
Case of the candidate was finally recommended for appointment against vacant post, but appointing authority did not issue appointment orders
Chief Court accepting writ petition of the candidate, directed the authorities to appoint her against the said post
Said petition having been filed with delay of three days, was time barred
No application for condonation of delay had been filed by the authorities
Advocate-General had urged that since candidate had committed fraud in collusion with the then Deputy Director and Director of Education, no limitation would run against the authorities
No plea of fraud had been taken in written comments, rather all the grounds taken, had been admitted and the written comments were filed by the petitioners/authorities
Point of fraud raised by the Advocate-General, was devoid of substance, in circumstances
Petition for leave to appeal being time-barred, was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MUZAFFAR ALI, J.
This petition for leave to appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16-11-2013, passed by the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, in Writ Petition No.92/2012, whereby the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan, has accepted the writ petition with the direction to the respondents to appoint the respondent against the post as prayed for.
2. The brief facts of the case are as such that the present respondent filed a writ petition with the plea that she is bona fide resident of Jutal Tehsil and District Gilgit, and as per advertisement made by the present petitioners she applied for the vacant post of EST Teacher in BPS-14 in the year 2014. As a result of the test interview conducted by the present petitioners she merited 3rd position. The respondents appointed two candidates who merited first and 2nd in result of the test interview conducted by the present petitioners. That after appointment of the two candidates who stood first and 2nd in the merit list.
3. A post of EST Teacher in BPS-14 became vacant in Girls Middle School Jutal Gilgit, so the present respondent applied for as being first candidate in the merit list prepared by the respondents. Her case was progressed by the respondent No.4 and recommended her to be appointed against the said post. The respondent No.3 also recommended and finally the case was referred to the DRC for examining and issuing the orders. The DRC also recommended the petitioner for appointment against the vacant post, but the respondent No.2 with mala fide intention has not issued the appointment orders of the petitioner. Hence she approached the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan through writ petition.
4. The learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan after adjudication the matter on merits acceded the petitioner and directed the respondent to appointment against the said post. Hence this petition for leave to appeal before this court against the impugned order passed by the learned Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan.
5. This petition for leave to appeal submitted by the respondents has been submitted after lapse of three days in limitation as such it is time barred. No application for condonation has been submitted by the respondent but the learned Advocate General urges that, since the petitioner committed fraud in collusion with the then Deputy Director and Director of Education as such no Limitation runs against the petitioner.
6. We perused the record of the case and also looked into the written comments submitted by respondents in Writ Petition No.92/2012, whereby it transpires that no plea of fraud has been taken in written comments rather the utmost all the grounds taken by the respondents have been admitted and the written comments filed by the present petitioners.
7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the point of fraud raised by the learned Advocate General having devoid of substance. The petition for leave to appeal is time barred. Hence dismissed. File. HBT/185/GB Petition dismissed.