1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUSHTAQ AHMED Versus Engineer MUHAMMAD KHALID and 4 others
| Citation | 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court (AJ&K) |
| Bench Members | Basharat Ahmad Shaikh, .J |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ AHMED Versus Engineer MUHAMMAD KHALID and 4 others |
| Primary Law | (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Basharat Ahmad Shaikh, .J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUSHTAQ AHMED Versus Engineer MUHAMMAD KHALID and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Riaz Alam, Advocate for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Azam Khan, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 26th May, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court dated 7-3-1998 in Writ Petition No. 137 of 1997).
S. 44
Doctrine of laches was not applicable to writ of quo warranto.
S. 44
Term "quo warranto" or relevant phraseology relating to writ of quo warranto though had not been used in writ petition, but writ petition filed by petitioner who had not claimed any benefit for himself essentially was one of quo warranto because only specific prayer made in that writ was that order of respondent's appointment might be set aside.
Judgment & Decree
BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.
This petition for leave to appeal has been filed to challenge the admission order. The petitioner, who is a retired Colonel, was appointed as Associate Professor (B-19) and was also assigned to work as Dean of the Ali Ahmad Shah University College of Engineering and Technology, Mirpur on 5th of November, 1996. The respondent. who is Assistant Professor in the department of Electrical Engineering in the same College, filed a writ petition on 12th of November, 1997 to challenge the appointment of the petitioner. The writ petition has been admitted to regular hearing. This has been done in view of the following legal objections raised by the respondent:
(i) The petitioner is not eligible for appointment because he is not a State-Subject which is an essential requirement under section 5 of the University Act; (ii) No applications were invited before appointing the petitioner which is a necessary condition; (iii) The petitioner has not been recommended by Selection Board nor was he approved by the Syndicate; and (iv) The petitioner does not fulfil the qualifications prescribed for the post of Associate Professor. It is submitted by Mr. Riaz Alam in support of the petition that the respondent, being himself a member of the Faculty, knew about the appointment of the petitioner but filed the petition after an inordinate delay of more than one year. It is submitted that the writ petition was, therefore, hit by laches. The argument has no force because it is well-settled that doctrine of laches is riot applicable to a writ of quo warranto. Confronted with this proposition, Mr. Riaz Alam submitted that the writ petition filed by the respondent was not a writ of quo warranto. I have gone through the writ petition. The term quo warranto or relevant phraseology relating to writ of quo warranto has not been used in the writ petition but the petition is essentially one of quo warranto because the only specific prayer made in the writ petition is that the order of the petitioner's appointment may be set aside. The petitioner has not claimed any benefit for himself. It was then contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an adequate remedy by way of appeal to the Syndicate provided by section 38 of the University Act was available to the respondent but he did not avail it. This point also does not have any weight because the writ petition has not been filed by the respondent to seek any service benefit for himself. That being so, the petition is dismissed. H.B.T./292/SC(AJ&K) ???????????????????????????????? Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.