2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
ABDUL KHALIQUE Versus THE UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI through its Registrar and 2 others
| Citation | 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL KHALIQUE Versus THE UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI through its Registrar and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 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 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Muhammad Bashir Jehangiri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (ABDUL KHALIQUE Versus THE UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI through its Registrar and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- K.A. Wahab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 11th November, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5‑9‑1997 of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi passed in C.P No.D‑383 of 1996). ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Selection by Selection Board‑‑‑Vested right‑‑‑Time‑barred petition‑‑‑Petitioner was selected by Selection 'Board but the Appointing Authority did not appoint him to the post‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Mere selection by Selection Board did not confer a right on the petitioner to be appointed for the post when his selection was not approved by the Appointing Authority‑‑ Grievance raised by the petitioner was of individual nature‑‑‑No question of law of public importance was involved warranting interference under Art. 212(3) of the Constitution‑‑‑Petition was barred by 95 days and no valid ground existed for condonation of delay‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Saleem Sammo, A.A.‑G. Sindh (on Court's Notice).
Judgment & Decree
K.A. Wahab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.
1. Muhammad Saleem Sammo, A.A.‑G. Sindh (on Court's Notice). Date of hearing: 11th November, 1998. IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.‑‑‑This petition is directed, against the judgment dated 5‑9‑1997 passed by the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Constitutional Petition No.383‑D of 1997.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that the appropriate Selection Board selected him and others for the post of Assistant Controller (Examinations) against an advertisement published in daily 'Jang' dated 5‑8‑1993, he was not appointed by the Appointing Authority to the said post. The same plea was raised before the High Court which was repelled after perusing the comments filed on behalf of the respondents herein. It would be advantageous to re‑produce the following paragraph from the impugned judgment which read thus:‑ "It may be pointed out that firstly, if the petitioner was merely selected by the Selection Board, no vested right was created in favour of the petitioner. Mere selection by the Selection Board does not give him a right to maintain the present petition when his selection was not approved by the appointing authority and no letter of appointment was given to him. The petitioner has also not joined the said persons who were given preference by the respondent and were appointed as Assistant Controllers of Examinations. No judgment can be passed against a party without affording him an opportunity of hearing."
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length. In our view the High Court was right in holding that mere selection by the Selection Board does not confer a right on the petitioner to be appointed to the post in dispute when his selection was not approved by the appointing authority. Even otherwise the grievance raised herein is of individual nature. No question of law of public importance involves warranting our interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The petition is also barred by 95 days and no valid ground exists for condonation.
4. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused. Q.M.H./A‑228/SC Petition dismissed.