SCMR 1987

1987 PLP 93 (SCMR)

NASIM HIJAZI‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. and 4 others‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal 274/R of 1985, decided on 4th November, 1986.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1987 PLP 93 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ
Parties NASIM HIJAZI‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. and 4 others‑‑Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 93 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 93 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 93 (SCMR) (NASIM HIJAZI‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. and 4 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑

Representation

  • M. Sadiq Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court and Imitaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 4th November, 1986.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 11‑3‑1985 in W.P. No. 74 of 1984). ‑‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑North‑West Frontier Province Public Service Commission Act (XIX of 1973), S.9‑‑Petitioner challenged by writ petition conditions and limitations which were not communicated /prescribed by Public Service Commission before but were pressed into service after conducting written examination‑‑Dismissal of writ petition impugned‑‑Admission of petitioner to said examination being provisional and his candidature being subject to decision by Government regarding number of chances which a candidate could avail for any examination to be conducted by Commission, petitioner could not have any grievance upon decision taken by Government‑‑ Petition for leave to appeal being devoid of merits, dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th November, 1986. MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Peshawar High Court, dated 11‑3‑1985 passed in Writ Petition No. 74 of 1984 on the grounds that the terms and conditions as laid down in the advertisement No. 4/84 did not prescribe any limitation other than those mentioned therein; that even the instructions for candidates, appearing on the application form, are not prescribed and were pressed into service on 12‑9‑1984 after the written examination; that under the rules for service in question the condition of 3 chances alone was not prescribed but it was applicable to Provincial Civil Servants (Judicial Branch), Section Officers and Extra Assistant Commissioners as per notification issued by the respondents, and the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests is exempt from operation of notifications at any rate and that all subsequent notifications and subordinate instructions issued by the respondents are only prospective in operation and nature and do not, in any way, affect adversely the erstwhile rights and obligations having accrued to the petitioner.

2. We have gone through the impugned order and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the material placed on record. In paragraph 1 of the Admission Certificate whereby the petitioner was admitted to the written examination, it is clearly mentioned that this admission is provisional. The said Certificate reads as follows: "You are admitted to this examination provisionally subject to being found eligible in all respects. Your candidature will be cancelled if you are found ineligible at any stage for any reason(s)." It is the case of the respondents that there were attached to the Admission Certificate instructions which were sent to all the candidates including the petitioner which are reproduced as under:‑ "The question of limiting the chances to be availed by candidates in competitive examinations, conducted by N.‑W.F.P. Public Service Commission, is under consideration of the Provincial Government. It should be understood that those candidates who have already availed of more chances than the limit as may be laid down by the Government would automatically stand disqualified. From this it appears that not only the admission of the petitioner to the written examination was provisional but his candidature was also made subject to the decision by the Government regarding the chances which a candidate could avail for any examination to be conducted by the Commission. That being so, the petitioner could not have any grievance upon the decision taken by the Provincial Government. We find no merit in this petition which is, consequently, dismissed. M.I. Petition dismissed.