P L D 2019 Sindh 399 (PLP)
Syed MUHAMMAD IQBAL KAZMI — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2019 Sindh 399 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Syed MUHAMMAD IQBAL KAZMI — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (a) Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2019 Sindh 399 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Constitution of Pakistan, (a) Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2019 Sindh 399 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2019 Sindh 399 (PLP) (Syed MUHAMMAD IQBAL KAZMI — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 4, 8, 25, 37, 175-A 177(2)(a) & 199
Constitutional petition
Judge of (Sindh) High Court who was fourth on the seniority list was elevated as a Judge of the Supreme Court
Plea of petitioner that elevation of said Judge was against Arts.4, 8, 25 & 37 of the Constitution, and that Art.177(2)(a) of the Constitution was in conflict with Arts.25, 37 & 175-A of the Constitution
Petitioner conceded that he had not filed the present Constitutional petition for enforcement of any of his Fundamental Rights as enshrined in the Constitution nor same had been infringed in any manner
Besides, petitioner also conceded that the Judge in question who was nominated for appointment as a Judge of the Supreme Court was eligible and fulfilled the requisite conditions as envisaged in the Constitution
Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
Arts. 175-A(1) & 177(2)(a)
Appointment of a Judge of the High Court as a Judge of the Supreme Court
Such appointment was a fresh appointment and not a promotion.
Judgment & Decree
1. Granted. 2 to
5. By invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court petitioner is seeking following reliefs: Heard the petitioner and scanned the memo of petition. During hearing the petitioner very frankly conceded that he has not filed the instant petition for enforcement of any of his fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution nor same have been infringed in any manner. Besides, he also conceded that the learned Judge of this Court who is nominated for appointment as a Judge of Honourable Supreme Court is eligible and fulfills the requisite conditions as envisaged in the Constitution of 1973. Moreover, the Honourable apex Court has also observed that the appointment of a Judge of the High Court as a Judge of the Supreme Court is a fresh appointment and not a promotion. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any force in the instant petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine along with the pending miscellaneous applications. MWA/M-84/Sindh. Petition dismissed.