1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Art. .199

Constitutional jurisdiction

Locus standi to agitate grievance-- Where petitioner had made challenge to eligibility of respondent to contest with him for a particular post on basis of qualifications advertised for the post, he had locus standi to agitate his grievance that respondent did not possess requisite qualifications. Ata Ullah Mehr v. Punjab Government 1983 CLC 2903; Muhammad Mumtazul Hasan v. Ata Ullah Mehar PLD .1984 Lah. 27; Muhammad Mumtazul Hasan v. Ata Ullah Mehar 1984 SCMR 1499 and Imam Bakhsh v. Deputy Commissioner, Layyah 1992 SCMR 365 ref.

Art. 199

Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise, of-- -Controversy raised in Constitutional petition did not relate to civil servant in respect of terms-.and conditions of service but challenge had been made to recommendations of Public Service Commission prior to period when respondent became civil servant--Such grievance was justifiable in Constitutional jurisdiction. --Effect

Where on basis of void order subsequent orders had been passed either by same Authority or by other Authorities, whole series of such orders together with superstructure of rights and obligations built upon them, must, unless some statute or principle of law recognising as legal changed position of parties was in operation, would fall to ground because such order had as little legal, foundation as void orders on which they were founded. United States by Leo J. Sweeney (1977 Edn.) ref. Yousuf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia PLD 1958 SC 104 rel.

Art. 199

Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of

Refusal to grant discretionary relief--Essentials

Petitioner and respondent being contesting candidates for post of Professor advertised by Public Service Commission, respondent was recommended while petitioner was not found suitable

Such recommendation was within competence of Public Service Commission-- During pendency of Constitutional petition, however, petitioner had been promoted to Grade-19 and was holding post of Professor, while respondent had been promoted to Grade-20, during such pendency

Substantial justice having been done to both parties, case was not lit one for exercise of discretionary Constitional jurisdiction to disturb entire selection process and remit case to Public Service Commission to consider all eligible candidates for post in question, afresh

Having regard to special circumstances of case, Court was not bound to issue writ merely because initial order of appointment of respondent suffered from any defect as substantial justice had been done to both parties during course of litigation before Court

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. The Queen v. Lord Newborough 1869 LR 4 QB 585; Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali v. Chief Settlement Commissioner PLD 1973 SC 236; "Constitutional Law of India" by H.M. Seervai at page 648; Farzand Ali v. Province of West Pakistan PLD 1970 SC 98; Dr. Kamal Hussain v. Muhammad Sirajul Islam. PLD'1969 SC 42 rel.