2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTRE, ISLAMABAD Versus PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION through Secretary, Lahore and 3 others
| Citation | 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTRE, ISLAMABAD Versus PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION through Secretary, Lahore and 3 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (AGRICULTURE RESEARCH CENTRE, ISLAMABAD Versus PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION through Secretary, Lahore and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raza Hussain Shamsi for Petitioner.
- Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal and Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Respondent No. 1.
- Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent No.2.
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood for Respondent No.3.
- 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the cut out date for experience was 30th of May, 1991, the last date for receipt of the application. The petitioner did not possess requisite experience on this date. It is added that the petitioner made a misstatement in the application form, wherein he mentioned himself as regular employee of the PARC, whereas he has been appointed on ad hoc basis but not allowed to join duty on account of ban on appointments, therefore, this period could not be counted towards service. It is submitted that as the petitioner did not service, therefore, he was not paid salary for this period and this period could not be counted towards his experience.
- 5. The learned Additional Advocate‑General argued with reference to the application form submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner had made a misstatement in respect of his status and the period of the ad hoc appointment could not be counted towards the experience. He has produced the original record including the application form, which was deemed necessary for adjudication of the issues involved, as per direction of the Court.
- In this view of the matter, the‑ basis as contained in para. 6 of the impugned decision of the Commission for withdrawing the recommendation in favour of the petitioner disappeared. The learned Additional Advocate‑General contended that if looked with reference to column 14 of the form, the petitioner has failed to disclose that his services were terminated. Before adjudging this argument we have to refer to column 14 of the form, which reads as under:‑‑
Judgment & Decree
(ii) Senior Engineer Farm 31‑5‑1984 02 02 18 Machinery Institute to NARC,PARC, 19‑8‑1986 Islamabad. (iii) ‑‑ditto‑‑ 14‑11‑1990 00 06 16 to 30‑5‑1991
Total: 03 00 22
In this view of the matter, the‑ basis as contained in para. 6 of the impugned decision of the Commission for withdrawing the recommendation in favour of the petitioner disappeared. The learned Additional Advocate‑General contended that if looked with reference to column 14 of the form, the petitioner has failed to disclose that his services were terminated. Before adjudging this argument we have to refer to column 14 of the form, which reads as under:‑‑ . "(14)If you have been dismissed/removed from Government service under any provincial/Federal Government please given below details thereof, and attach all relevant documents where applicable." It is clear from the same that the column pertained to Government service and it did not cover the service with the statutory body like the NARC, PARC, therefore, the argument is without merit. However, it is high time that the Commission should consider amendment of column 14 so as' to include in its folds employees of statutory autonomous and local bodies as well as Banks and public limited companies.
9. In this view of the matter, it is not possible to subscribe to the impugned decision as the petitioner in spite of the termination of service had requisite experience. The calculation, reproduced above, made by the Commission is correct. I have the impression that after the judgment in the case reported as Dr. Munir Ahmed v. The Punjab Public Service Commission and 3 others (1992 PLC (CS) 992). The column 14 has been amended as under:‑‑
N.A.
This is comprehensive. If it is so then it would serve the purpose, otherwise the column requires amendment. ‑Besides this following sub‑column may also be provided:‑‑ 1. (a)
Whether applicant was Brief Allegations Result ever proceeded under E&D Rules?
A copy of the show‑cause notice and charge‑sheet alongwith reply should be attached if the proceedings are still pending and, if finalized, copy of the last order. 2. (b) Whether the applicant has ever been adversely reported?
Adverse Report Gist of the adverse Result remarks
10. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs. The result is that the impugned order, dated 15‑6‑1994 of respondent No. 1 cancelling the recommendation in favour of the petitioner is set aside being illegal and without basis. H.B.T./M‑26/L Petition accepted.