2006 PLP 1545 (SCMR)
SHAUKAT BABAR VIRK and others — Petitioners Versus Syed AMJAD ALI SHAH and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 1545 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Hameed Dogar and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | SHAUKAT BABAR VIRK and others — Petitioners Versus Syed AMJAD ALI SHAH and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 1545 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 1545 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Hameed Dogar and Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 1545 (SCMR) (SHAUKAT BABAR VIRK and others — Petitioners Versus Syed AMJAD ALI SHAH and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aftab Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in both cases).
- Arshad Ali Chaudhary, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C. P. No. 1742 of 2004).
- Nemo for Respondents (in both cases).
- Date of hearing: 7th February, 2006.
- 4. We have heard Mr. Aftab Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-6-2004 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No.4722 of 1998).
Petitioner was appointed on contract basis for a period of two years, but his appointment was terminated about two months after his appointment
Petitioner, however, was again appointed on his application routed through the Minister on same terms and conditions
Said appointment was challenged in constitutional petition and High Court declared said appointment order as without lawful authority holding that said post would be deemed to be vacant and that if Department wanted to fill said vacancy, prescribed procedure in the Service Rules, should be followed
Appointment of petitioner being on contract basis and the contract period having expired, his appointment was not alive
Findings recorded in the impugned order, being proper, would not call for any interference by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.
By this single order we intend to dispose of the Civil Petitions Nos.1472 and 1814 of 2004 as they arise out of a common judgment, dated 2-6-2004 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No.4722 of 1998 filed by respondent was allowed.
2. Precisely the facts leading to the filing of the instant petitions are that Shaukat Babar Virk petitioner in Civil Petition No. 1472 of 2004 was appointed as Programme Producer on contract basis for a period of two years on 25-9-1996 by petitioner No.2. His appointment was, however, terminated vide notice dated 23-11-1996. However, on the application of said petitioner routed through the Minister for Information and Media Development, he was appointed again on the same terms and conditions vide order, dated 13-9-1997.
3. Amjad Ali Shah petitioner in Writ Petition No.4722 of 1998 and respondent herein challenged the said appointment in the above writ petition which was allowed and the order, dated 13-9-1997 was declared as without lawful authority. It was held that said post would be deemed to be vacant and if petitioner-department wanted to fill the said vacancy, prescribed procedure in the service rules should be followed. Petitioners feeling dissatisfied challenged the said order through the instant petitions.
4. We have heard Mr. Aftab Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
5. Admittedly, the appointment of Shaukat Babar Virk petitioner was on contract basis which period has expired, as such, the appointment is not alive. Moreover the findings observed in the impugned order are proper and do not call for any interference.
6. Accordingly the petitions being devoid of force are dismissed and leave to appeal refused. H.B.T./S-15/SC Petitions dismissed.