1989 5 C M R 278 (PLP)
NAZIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE),BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1989 5 C M R 278 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE),BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 5 C M R 278 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 5 C M R 278 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 5 C M R 278 (PLP) (NAZIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MEMBER (REVENUE),BOARD OF REVENUE and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. M.Z. Khalil, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 17th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment of Lahore High Court in W.P. No. 855 of 1971).
Arts. 199 & 185(3)--Departmental examination--Petitioner, a Qanoongo candidate, made a number of attempts to pass departmental examination but failed to qualify same--Petitioner, obtained permission from Collector for appearing fourth time in the said examination but permission was withdrawn by Member, Board of Revenue--No interference, held, was called for in order of Member, Board of Revenue as already concluded by High Court.
Judgment & Decree
GHULAM MUJADDID, J.‑‑Munshi Nazir Ahmad (Qanoongo candidate) resident of village Lether Tehsil and District Multan, has filed this petition for special leave to appeal against the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 17‑1‑1982 whereby the Constitution petition filed by him was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was entitled to the fourth chance for Departmental Examination for which the necessary permission had been given by the Collector but that was withdrawn by the Member, Board of Revenue without any justification. We don't think this contention has any force. The petitioner had made number of attempts but did not succeed. Therefore, the High Court rightly declined to interfere but still a favourable observation had been made by the High Court in the impugned judgment and the petitioner should be grateful to that. Otherwise, we don't think it is a case where leave is to be granted. M.Y.H./N‑95/S Petition dismissed.