1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MASOODA BEGUM Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, TOBA TEK SINGH and another
| Citation | 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hassan Khan, J |
| Parties | MASOODA BEGUM Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, TOBA TEK SINGH and another |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Irshad Hassan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MASOODA BEGUM Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, TOBA TEK SINGH and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Hanif Niazi for Petitioner.
- 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the imposition of ban is not relevant in the instance case, in that, the previous appointment was made on 27-6-1986, restoration of which has been sought for by the petitioner, prior to the imposition of ban. When confronted with this, the learned Addl. Advocate-General submits that the Secretary Education has already sent the case to the competent authority for relaxation of ban in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the decision is likely to be taken very shortly. In case, the decision is not taken within 90 days by the competent authority, the petitioner may again approach this Court. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Appointment‑‑‑Imposition of ban on recruitment of Lady Teachers ‑‑‑Petitioner seeking restoration in service as Drawing Mistress in newly upgraded High School ‑‑‑Government had previously appointed her in said school in BPS‑9 but the appointment was to take effect after lifting of ban imposed by Government on recruitment of Lady Teachers in BPS‑9 after summer vacation‑‑‑Contention on behalf of petitioner was that imposition of ban was not relevant in case of petitioner whose appointment was made prior to imposition of ban‑‑‑Case of petitioner stated to have been sent to competent authority for relaxation of ban and decision was likely to be taken very shortly ‑‑‑Held, in case decision was not taken within 90 days by competent authority, petitioner would again approach the High Court Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.‑G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Imposition of ban on recruitment of Lady Teachers
Petitioner seeking restoration in service as Drawing Mistress in newly upgraded High School
Government had previously appointed her in said school in BPS-9 but the appointment was to take effect after lifting of ban imposed by Government on recruitment of Lady Teachers in BPS-9 after summer vacation
Contention on behalf of petitioner was that imposition of ban was not relevant in case of petitioner whose appointment was made prior to imposition of ban
Case of petitioner stated to have been sent to competent authority for relaxation of ban and decision was likely to be taken very shortly
Held, in case decision was not taken within 90 days by competent authority, petitioner would again approach the High Court Muhammad Hanif Niazi for Petitioner. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.-G. for the State. The grievance of the petitioner relates to her restoration in service as Drawing Mistress in the newly up-graded high school in Chak No.247/G.B. The Punjab Government vide order dated 13-6-1990 has already appointed the petitioner in the said school in BPS-9 in the Educational Subordinate Services District Cadre subject to terms and conditions laid down therein. The appointment is to take effect after lifting of the ban imposed by the Government on recruitment of lady teachers in BPS-9, after summer vacation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the imposition of ban is not relevant in the instance case, in that, the previous appointment was made on 27-6-1986, restoration of which has been sought for by the petitioner, prior to the imposition of ban. When confronted with this, the learned Addl. Advocate-General submits that the Secretary Education has already sent the case to the competent authority for relaxation of ban in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and the decision is likely to be taken very shortly. In case, the decision is not taken within 90 days by the competent authority, the petitioner may again approach this Court. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. M.Y.H./M-2379/L Petition allowed.