2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
IJAZ AHMED and others Versus REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT
| Citation | 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, Karamat Nazir Bhandari, and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | IJAZ AHMED and others Versus REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT |
| Primary Law | High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ihsan-ul-Haq Chaudhry, Karamat Nazir Bhandari, and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (IJAZ AHMED and others Versus REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A. Zafar for Appellants. Rana Muhammad Arif, Addl. A.-G. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 1st April, f999.
- M.A. Zafar for Appellants. Rana Muhammad Arif, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Cl. (20)
Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3
Intra-Courc Appeal
Appellants, without first availing remedy of appear before Appellate Authority, filed Constitutional petition which was dismissed and appellant had filed Intra-Court Appeal against the said judgment
Contention was that appellant could not file appeal before Appellate Authority as representation filed by .him before Competent Authority had not been disposed of
Contention was repelled in view of the fact that proviso to S.3, Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, had clearly provided that if application before High Court arose out of any proceedings in which law applicable had provided for at least one appeal or (revision or one review) Intra-Court Appeal would not be competent
Irrespective of the fact, whether appellant could not file Departmental appeal due to non disposal of their representation, Intra-Court Appeal filed by them, was not competent.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.‑‑‑The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 29‑12‑1997 passed by Learned Single Judge in Chamber in Writ Petition No.29440 of 1997, whereby the petition of the appellants was dismissed in limine. The grievance voiced by them was that, they alongwith others, had appeared in the examination held by the High Court for the purpose of recruitment/appointment of the Readers of this Court. The petitioners had secured qualifying marks, but certain candidates (appearing at Serial No. 22 to 30 as respondents in the writ petition) had been declared successful by granting to them, two grace marks in paper No.
1. This according to the appellants is an illegal and unlawful action. Thus assailed to writ.
2. When confronted, whether a right to appeal is available to the appellants in terms of clause 20 of the High Court. Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Services) Rules, the learned counsel 'states that as representation filed by the appellants has not so far been disposed of consequently the remedy of appeal cannot be availed by them, therefore, the instant Inter Court Appeal would be competent.
3. We are afraid that the above contention of learned counsel is not well‑founded for two reasons; firstly, the proviso to section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, clearly states, that if the application before the High Court arises out of any proceedings in which law applicable provides for at least one appeal; or revision or one review I.C.A would not be competent. Thus, in the light of above provisions, irrespective of the fact, whether the appellants could not file appeal, due to non-disposal of their representation, the present appeal is not tenable.
4. Even otherwise, the submission that the departmental representation of the appellants has not so far been disposed of run contrary to paragraph No. l‑(F) at page 7 of the present memo. of appeal which reads as follow:‑‑ "The appellant filed departmental representation which was dismissed arbitrarily and without assigning any cogent reason. "
5. With regard to question of competency of the writ petitions against the High Court in terms of sub‑Article (5) of Article 199 the reasons recorded in our judgment in W.P. No. 18001 of 1998, titled Mian Arif Saeed v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore, should be read as integral part of this.
6. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed being incompetent. However, in the interest of justice, we direct the Registrar of this Court, that in case the representation of the appellants is yet un-disposed, he may bring the same to the notice of the Honorable Chief Justice so that the matter could be expeditiously attended to. H.B.T./I‑102/C Appeal dismissed.