PLC(CS) 1992

1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Khawaja EJAZ AHMED Versus CHAIRMAN, MIRPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MIRPUR and another

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court (AJ&K)
Decided Date
N/A
Honorable Judges
Abdul Majeed Mallick, C.J.
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court High Court (AJ&K)
Bench Members Abdul Majeed Mallick, C.J.
Parties Khawaja EJAZ AHMED Versus CHAIRMAN, MIRPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MIRPUR and another
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court (AJ&K) bench comprising: Abdul Majeed Mallick, C.J..

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Khawaja EJAZ AHMED Versus CHAIRMAN, MIRPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, MIRPUR and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Agha Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner.
  • M.Y. Surakhvi for Respondents.

Judgment & Decree

Writ petition No.48 of 1990, decide on 23rd November,1991. (a) Azad Jammu Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)

S. 4--Termination of petitioner's service by respondent official

Service of petitioner was terminated by the respondent Authority and not by the respondent official

Respondent Authority, however, had delegated its powers to respondent official

Respondent official, as the delegate of the powers of respondent Authority was, therefore, competent to pass orders of termination of petitioner's service. (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)

S. 44

Termination of petitioner's service

Validity

Petitioner's appointment order was subject to approval of respondent Authority-- Respondent Authority having not approved appointment of petitioner, same, prima facie was invalid

Where an order giving rise to a cause of action was illegal or void, jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked for redress of the grievance

Petitioner's appointment being temporary, he was not vested with a right to seek indulgence of High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction

Order of termination of service of petitioner passed by respondent Authority being in compliance with terms and conditions of the service, was unassailable in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court. Agha Ashiq Hussain for Petitioner. M.Y. Surakhvi for Respondents.