1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SHAH NAWAZ KHAN KUNDI through Legal Heirs Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and 2 others
| Citation | 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Hamid Saeed and Shah Jehan Khan Yousufzai, JJ |
| Parties | SHAH NAWAZ KHAN KUNDI through Legal Heirs Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and 2 others |
| Primary Law | North‑West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act (XVIH of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: North‑West Frontier Province Civil Servants Act (XVIH of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court bench comprising: Malik Hamid Saeed and Shah Jehan Khan Yousufzai, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SHAH NAWAZ KHAN KUNDI through Legal Heirs Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Gohar Zaman Khan Kundi for Petitioner.
- Shaukat Hayat Khan Khakwani for Respondents,
- Date of hearing: 18th March 1997.
- 3. Mr. Gohar Zaman Khan Kundi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently stressed that the order of Provincial Selection Board; refusing regularisation of his client in E.A.C. (E.B.) cadre due to his indifferent service record, despite the fact that on his recruitment as a Tehsildar directly his promotion to the post of EAC was temporary and not on ad hoc basis, is unwarranted. His contention was that the objection of the respondents that the petitioner's case could be considered only after getting his services regularised is absolutely incorrect, because he was holding the regular post of Tehsildar and promoted there from in accordance with the rules by a competent Authority and withholding promotion to him is against all the cannons of justice and in violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 212 & 199‑‑‑Seniority‑‑ Jurisdiction of High Court in service matters‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Jurisdiction of all Courts including High Court has been taken away in matters in respect of which Service Tribunal has been empowered‑‑‑Provision of Art. 212(2) of the Constitution also excludes jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution‑‑‑Order denying seniority to civil servant related to his terms and conditions of service which was not open, to challenge under Art. 199 of the Constitution‑‑‑Order of such nature could be challenged under Art. 212 of the Constitution before Service Tribunal‑‑‑High Court, thus, had no jurisdiction to grant relief to civil servant in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
3. Mr. Gohar Zaman Khan Kundi, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently stressed that the order of Provincial Selection Board; refusing regularisation of his client in E.A.C. (E.B.) cadre due to his indifferent service record, despite the fact that on his recruitment as a Tehsildar directly his promotion to the post of EAC was temporary and not on ad hoc basis, is unwarranted. His contention was that the objection of the respondents that the petitioner's case could be considered only after getting his services regularised is absolutely incorrect, because he was holding the regular post of Tehsildar and promoted there from in accordance with the rules by a competent Authority and withholding promotion to him is against all the cannons of justice and in violation of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
4. We are, however, not persuaded with the arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel and reproduce Article 212 of the Constitution which read as under: ‑‑ Article 212. ‑‑Administrative Courts And Tribunals. ‑‑‑(I) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, the appropriate Legislature may by act (provide for the establishment of) one or more Administrative Courts or Tribunals to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in respect of‑‑‑ (a) matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons who are or have been in the service of Pakistan, including disciplinary matters; (b) matters relating to claims arising from tortious acts of Government, or any person in the service of Pakistan, or of any local or other authority empowered by law to levy any tax or cess and any servant of such authority acting in the discharge of his duties as such servant; or (c) matters relating to the acquisition, administration and disposal of any property which is deemed to be enemy property under any law; (2) ... .... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ... ... .. ... ...‑... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (3) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... being satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance, grants leave to appeal."
5. From perusal of aforementioned Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, we are clear in our mind that the jurisdiction of all Courts including this Court has been taken away in matters in respect to which Service Tribunal has been empowered. Sub‑clause (2) of Article 212 ibid also excludes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 thereof.
6. We, therefore, hold that the impugned order concerns with the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner, which is not open to challenge under Article 199 of the Constitution but could be challenged under Article 212 before the Service Tribunal.
7. In consequence, we are left with no option but to dismiss this writ petition for want of jurisdiction. A.A./2107/P Petition dismissed.