PLC(CS)N 2020

2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

NASIR MAHMOOD KHAN and others Versus JEHANGIR and others

Jurisdiction / Court
Peshawar High Court (D.I. Khan Bench)
Decided Date
Writ Petition No.876-D of 2010, decided on 6th February, 2018.
Honorable Judges
Ijaz Anwar and Shakeel Ahmad, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)
Forum / Court Peshawar High Court (D.I. Khan Bench)
Bench Members Ijaz Anwar and Shakeel Ahmad, JJ
Parties NASIR MAHMOOD KHAN and others Versus JEHANGIR and others
Primary Law Civil service
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?

The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court (D.I. Khan Bench) bench comprising: Ijaz Anwar and Shakeel Ahmad, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) (NASIR MAHMOOD KHAN and others Versus JEHANGIR and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil service

Representation

  • Saleemullah Khan Ranazai and Muhammad Waheed Anjum for Petitioners.
  • Noor Alam Khan and Kamaran Hayat Khan Miankhel, AAG for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

Appointment

Eligibility

Scope

Petitioner contended alleged that the respondents did not possess the requisite experience as required in the advertisement; that the experience of private service of respondents was wrongly considered; that the institution in which respondents served was recognized at a later point in time, therefore, they lacked the requisite experience and the requirement of the advertisement was that experience certificate must be given by a recognized Institute

Validity

Contentions of petitioner were based on misconception

Institution, in which the respondents had served, at the relevant point in time, was provisionally affiliated with the Board of Technical Education and the experience certificate issued by the college showed that the respondents had served the Institute

Experience of respondents was rightly considered by the Public Service Commission, as required under the advertisement, thus, no illegality was committed

Constitutional petition, being bereft of merit, was dismissed.

Judgment & Decree

SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.

Through this constitutional filed, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of. Pakistan, .1973, the petitioner seeks the following relief: "It is, therefore, prayed that by-accepting this petition the selection of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by Respondent No.4 as Associate Professor bf Commerce in BPS-19 may please be declared as without lawful authority and thus ineffective against the rights of petitioner and the petitioner being more qualified than Respondents Nos.1 and 2 be selected accordingly as Associate Professor of Commerce". 2 The brief facts of .the case are that by means of an advertisement No.01/2010 dated 19.01.2010, the Respondent No. 1 invited applications for, appointment in Technical Education Department, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, against different posts including the posts of Associate Professors (Commerce), on - the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner having requisite qualifications, applied, for the same, competed with others and secured 3rd position, however, names of the Respondents Nos.1 and 2, appearing at serial Nos.1 and 2 of the merit list. Consequently, vide notifications dated 14.10,2010 and 12.11.2010, the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed as Associate Professors on the recommendation bf the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission. Not contended with the same, the petitioner filed the instant constitutional petition, challenging the impugned notifications, -whereby the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 were appointed as Associate Professor in BPS-19.

3. It was mainly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 do not possess the requisite experience as required in the advertisement; that the experience of private service- of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 as Lecturer w.e.f. 03.01.1994 to 04.4,.1995, (one year, three months and one day), furnished by Qurtaha College, was wrongly considered; that the Qurtaba College was recognized vide notification dated 64.3.1996, therefore, they lack the requisite experience because the service rendered by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 w.e.f. 3.1.1994 to 04.4.1995, pertains to the period when the Institute was not recognized by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Board of. Technical Education and the requirement of the advertisement is that the teaching experience certificate must be given by a recognized Institute/College/University.

4. As against that, the learned counsel representing the official respondents, assisted by learned counsel for private respondents, argued that the argument furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner is erroneous and result of misconception, and argued that Qurtaba College of Commerce and Business Administration, Peshawar was given provisional affiliation with the Board of Technical Education Peshawar for a period of two years vide notification dated 05.01.1994, therefore, their teaching experience in the private service of the said institution w.e.f. 03.01.1994 to 04.4.1995; .was rightly considered by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Public Service Commission and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Arguments heard and record perused with the able assistance of learned counsel for the parties.

6. Perusal of the advertisement No.01/2010 dated 19.10.2010, reveals that the posts of Associate Professors (Commerce) were advertised .to be filled in Technical Education Department with the following qualifications:- "THREE (03) POSTS OF ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS (COMMERCE) IN TECHNICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT QUALIFICATION: (a) Ph.D in relevant subject from a recognized University with ten years experience of teaching as Instructor/Lecturer or Seven years teaching experience as Assistant-Professor in Commercial training Institute/ Government Commerce College/University OR (b) Master Degree in Commerce from a recognized University with fifteen years experience of teaching as Instructor/Lecturer or twelve years teaching experience as Assistant Professor in a recognized Institute/College/University. AGE LIMIT: 30 to 45 years PAY SCALE: BPS-19 ELIGIBILITY: Male ALLOCATION: Merit

7. Coming to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Qurtaba College of Commerce and Business Administration, Peshawar was recognized vide notification dated 04.3.1996, therefore, the experience certificate furnished by the College w.e.f. 03.01.1994 to 04.4.1995 (one year three months and one day), therefore, the same is not worth consideration for appointment as Associate Professor (Commerce), as the said period is prior to the recognition of the institute.. The argument is based on misconception. Perusal of notification bearing No:BTE/CERT/AFF/QURTAJB CC&BA/194-100 DATED 05.01.1994, reflects that Qurtaba College of Commerce and' Business Administration was provisionally affiliated with the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Board of Technical Education, Peshawar, for a period of two years, the notification No:BTE/CERT/AFF/QCC/4225 dated 4.3.1996, relates to the permanent affiliation of Qurtaba College with Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Technical Board of Education, Peshawar, and the experience certificate issued by the Qurtaba College of Commerce and Business Administration, showing that the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 served the institute is Lecturer, w.e.f. 03.01.1994 to 04.4.1995; is valid, therefore their experience was rightly considered by the respondents as required under the publication and thus no illegality was committed.

8. For what has been discussed above, we hold that the Respondent No.3 has not committed any illegality by considering the experience of the Respondents Nos.1 and 2 w.e.f. 03.01.1994 to 04.4.1995, as Lecturer in the Qurtaba College of Commerce and Business Administration. The writ petition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed. SA/220/P Petition dismissed.