2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Dr. MUHAMMAD NAEEM ASLAM Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and others
| Citation | 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ |
| Parties | Dr. MUHAMMAD NAEEM ASLAM Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Syed Jamshed Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Dr. MUHAMMAD NAEEM ASLAM Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Khan, Advocate, Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 20-2-2007 passed in I.C.A. No.445 of 2001).
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Constitutional petition filed by petitioner against selection process/initial appointment of respondents was dismissed and intra-court appeal filed against said judgment was also dismissed
More than 10 years had gone by since respondents were appointed and in the meanwhile petitioner had also been promoted in the same institution
Issuance of initial appointment being no longer a live issue, Supreme Court declined to carry out an academic exercise and interfere with the valuable rights which had accrued to the respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Leave is sought against the judgment, dated 20-2-2007 passed by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing petitioner's intra-Court appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave on the ground that the impugned judgment of the learned Division Bench reflects misreading inasmuch as petitioner had specifically urged in the constitutional petition that the respondents were appointed as Senior Registrars Cardiology notwithstanding the fact that they did not have the requisite qualification of specialization in cardiology whereas the learned Judges fell in error in observing that, "we are afraid that the above ground has not been raised in the writ dilated upon by the learned single Judge in Chamber". Adds that in terms of notification, dated 10th of April, 1995, the primary qualification is in the respective specialty and it is only in the event of non-availability of such a candidate that the alternative threshold could be made available to the candidates concerned.
3. We have considered the submissions made.
4. Petitioner by way of Writ Petition No.3703 of 1998 had challenged the selection process/initial appointment of respondents Nos.6 to 9 as Senior Registrars, Cardiology in the Punjab Institute of Cardiology carried out by the Punjab Public Service Commission as far back as the year 1998. His constitutional petition was dismissed on 28-2-2001 and the intra-court appeal filed against the said judgment met the same fate. More than 10 years have gone by since the respondents were appointed and it is not denied by petitioner's learned counsel that in the meanwhile petitioner has also been promoted as Senior Registrar Cardiology in the same institute.
5. In the afore-referred circumstances, we are afraid the issue of initial appointment is no longer a live issue and this Court may not like to carryout an academic exercise and interfere with the valuable rights which have accrued to the respondents. Hence, finding no substantial cause to warrant interference, this petition lacking in merit is accordin6ly dismissed. Leave refused. H.B.T./M-103/SC Petition dismissed.