2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)
SHAHID HUSSAIN and 3 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary and 5 others
| Citation | 2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Alam and Malik Haq Nawaz, JJ |
| Parties | SHAHID HUSSAIN and 3 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary and 5 others |
| Primary Law | Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Muhammad Alam and Malik Haq Nawaz, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) (SHAHID HUSSAIN and 3 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Kifayat-ur-Rehman for Petitioners.
- 2. We have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners. The advertisement challenged through this petition is not disputed. It is also not disputed that counsel for petitioners filed another similar petition (W.P. No.68/2017), with the prayer of similar remedy which another D.B. of this Court did not allow vide order dated 18-04-2017. In our opinion, petitioners were legally bound to first exhaust the forum available to them for the remedy sought through this petition. We are of the further view that petitioners could approach any of the respondents first for the remedy sought and then only file a writ petition. It is an open secret that respondents have powers of extension of upper age limit of any person felt aggrieved from any such limit.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 71(2)--Writ petition
Petitioners had filed another writ petition with similar prayer and remedy which had been dismissed
Petitioners did not qualify the terms and conditions to appear in the subject tests and interviews
Petitioners wanted to prolong the tests and interviews to be conducted by the authorities
Writ petition being based on mala fide, was dismissed in limine. [paras. 2, 3 & 4 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.
This is a writ petition, whereby, petitioners have sought issuance of the directions to the respondents:- "In view of the above made submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the respondents may graciously be directed to amend the recruitment rules also to make allow five years general relaxation over and above the 33 years prescribed maximum age limit in recruitment to the posts advertised above and petitioners all graduates having 38 years age on the closing date may be declared eligible to compete in the competitive exams 2017. Any other relief, which this honourable court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, may please also be granted."
2. We have thoughtfully considered arguments advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners. The advertisement challenged through this petition is not disputed. It is also not disputed that counsel for petitioners filed another similar petition (W.P. No.68/2017), with the prayer of similar remedy which another D.B. of this Court did not allow vide order dated 18-04-2017. In our opinion, petitioners were legally bound to first exhaust the forum available to them for the remedy sought through this petition. We are of the further view that petitioners could approach any of the respondents first for the remedy sought and then only file a writ petition. It is an open secret that respondents have powers of extension of upper age limit of any person felt aggrieved from any such limit.
3. Petitioners are among the numerous person who do not qualify the terms and conditions which entitle petitioners to appear in the subject test and interview. Petition in hand cannot be admitted because petitioners want to prolong the tests and interviews planned to be conducted by respondents through the subject advertisement. So the petition in hand is based on mala fides as there may be hundreds of persons who are not qualifying the terms and conditions of the subject advertisement.
4. We, therefore, do not allow admission of this petition for regular hearing and instead we dismiss this petition in limine. Office is directed to send copies of this order to all respondents. Admission of petition for regular hearing is refused and petition dismissed in limine. This file be consigned to record. ZC/193/GB Petition dismissed.