1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN MALIK
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ |
| Parties | FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN MALIK |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, CJ., Fazal Ilahi Khan and Manzoor Hussain Sial, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus IJAZ HUSSAIN MALIK). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mumtaz Ali Mirza, Deputy Attorney instructed by Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Fazal Ilahi Siddiqui, Advocate instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 23rd November, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 18‑2‑1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No.30/R of 1992). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Promotion‑‑‑Service Tribunal while directing Selection Board to consider case of promotion of civil servant in accordance with correct legal criteria had acted justly‑‑‑Any interference with such just order would be against the interest of justice‑‑‑Case was, thus, not a fit one for exercise of Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction in the matter of granting leave to appeal‑‑‑Leave was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
NASIM HASAN SHAH, CJ.‑‑‑ This is a petition for leave to appeal from the orders and judgment, dated the 18th February, 1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal accepting the appeal of the respondent and directing the Central Selection Board to consider the case of promotion of the respondent in accordance with the correct legal criteria, which were duly explained in the judgment.
2. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General has submitted that the directions given by the Tribunal are in excess of its jurisdiction and its order, therefore, should be set aside.
3. We have given our earnest consideration to this plea. However, we are of the opinion, that the order passed is a just and fair order and any interference therewith would be against the interests of justice.
4. This case is not, therefore, a fit discretionary jurisdiction in the matter of granting leave to appeal.
5. Leave is accordingly refused. This petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. AA./F‑293/S Leave refused.