1989 SCMR 1799 (PLP)
ABDUL HALEEM SHAH ID‑‑Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL, OF POLICE, PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1799 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL HALEEM SHAH ID‑‑Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL, OF POLICE, PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1799 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1799 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Ali Hussain Qazilbash, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 1799 (PLP) (ABDUL HALEEM SHAH ID‑‑Petitioner Versus INSPECTOR‑GENERAL, OF POLICE, PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mchdi Khan Mchtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 17‑2‑1986, passed in Case No.290/321 of 1985). ‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Petitioner on his appointment failed to qualify examination after prescribed course of training which was a pre condition for retention in service‑‑Services of petitioner, held, were rightly terminated‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
ALI HUSSAIN QAZILBASH, J.‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 17‑2‑1986.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an A.S.I. in 1983 and he was to undergo the prescribed course of training at Police Training College, Sihala. The petitioner did undergo the training but failed to qualify in the examination. He was, however, allowed to take the full examination in the next term but as soon as this came to the notice of the Inspector‑General of Police he dispensed with his services on the ground that there was no reason to undergo training for the next term and to take part in the examination. This order was passed on 22‑11‑1984. The appeals of the petitioner before the Inspector‑General of Police and the Punjab Service Tribunal were dismissed
3. We have heard the learned counsel or the petitioner and have gone through the judgment of the Service Tribunal. Since the petitioner did not qualify in the examination. which was a pre‑condition for his retention in service, therefore, his services were rightly terminated. Thus there is no force in this petition and the same is dismissed. M.A.K./A‑531 /K Leave refused.