2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed JAVED IQBAL SHAH Versus THE SECRETARY EDUCATION and others
| Citation | 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | Syed JAVED IQBAL SHAH Versus THE SECRETARY EDUCATION and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (IV of 2000)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Syed JAVED IQBAL SHAH Versus THE SECRETARY EDUCATION and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Tariq Javed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th May, 2003.
- 2. It is mainly contended by Ch. Tariq Javed, learned Advocate Supreme Court that the petitioner was appointed by the Competent Authority and therefore, it cannot be termed as political appointment which could not be substantiated by any oral or documentary evidence. It is contended that the petitioner was having requisite qualifications for the PTC teacher who was appointed in accordance with law and his service could not have been terminated without having any inquiry which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 30‑8‑2001 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No.309 of 2001). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 3(1)(e), 5, 8, & 10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Illegal and out of merit appointment‑‑‑Removal from service‑‑‑Such penalty imposed by Authority was upheld by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant was at Serial No.6&, while there were 58 vacancies‑‑‑Civil servant, thus, could not have been appointed d e to non‑availability of any vacancy‑‑‑Appointment of civil servant was ab initio illegal and void for having been procured with collusion and connivance of concerned officials‑‑‑‑Appointment against non‑existing vacancy was so apparent on record, that same hardly needed any inquiry‑‑‑Enquiry could be dispensed with, if circumstances so justified‑‑‑Illegal and out of merit appointment being question of fact had been determined by Department and affirmed by Tribunal‑‑‑No question of law of public importance being involved, Supreme Court dismissed petition and refused leave to appeal.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑Pursuant to disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner who was appointed as PTC teacher for having procured his appointment out of merit, he was removed from service. After exhausting the departmental remedies, Punjab Service Tribunal was approached by way of appeal which has been rejected vide judgment impugned.
2. It is mainly contended by Ch. Tariq Javed, learned Advocate Supreme Court that the petitioner was appointed by the Competent Authority and therefore, it cannot be termed as political appointment which could not be substantiated by any oral or documentary evidence. It is contended that the petitioner was having requisite qualifications for the PTC teacher who was appointed in accordance with law and his service could not have been terminated without having any inquiry which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice.
3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of relevant provisions of law and record of the case. There is no denying the fact that 58 vacancies allocated to Tehsil Nankana Sahib were filled in after having completion of all the necessary formalities. It is also an admitted feature of the case that the petitioner was at Serial No.68 who could not have been appointed due to non‑availability of any vacancy. The petitioner succeeded in getting the appointment with the connivance and collusion of the concerned officer/official of the Education Department and as such his appointment was ab initio, illegal, and void. The appointment against a non‑existing vacancy was so apparent on the basis of record that it hardly needed any inquiry which otherwise could be dispensed 'with if circumstances so justify. The illegality and out of merit appointment being question of fact has been determined correctly by the Department, findings whereof have been affirmed by the learned Service Tribunal. No question of law or public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave could be granted. The petition being meritless is dismissed and leave refused S.A.K./J‑43/SC . Leave refused.