2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SAADIA ASLAM and 3 others Versus CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB WORKERS' WELFARE BOARD, LAHORE and 3 others
| Citation | 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, J |
| Parties | SAADIA ASLAM and 3 others Versus CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB WORKERS' WELFARE BOARD, LAHORE and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 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 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SAADIA ASLAM and 3 others Versus CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB WORKERS' WELFARE BOARD, LAHORE and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Altaf Hussain Qureshi for petitioners.
- Muhammad Nawaz Malik and Badar-ul-Amir, for Respondents Nos. l and 2.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
General clauses Act (X of 1897), S.21
Constitutional petition
Appointment order, recalling of
Non-providing opportunity of hearing to appointee before recalling such order on the ground to have been issued against the rules
Effect
Order passed by competent authority conferring rights on a party could not be recalled without _ serving a show-cause notice granting hearing and giving valid grounds for decision taken
Impugned order was violative of the rule of natural justice resultantly appointment order stood revived. Muhammad Shoaib and 2 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through the Collector, D.I. Khan and others 2005 SCMR 85 ref. Fawad Malik A.A.-G. with Mrs. Nasima Tahira, Director Education WWB Punjab.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J
The short point involved for consideration in this petition is that appointment orders in favour of the four petitioners were issued on 8-10-2005 by the competent authority but subsequently, these appointments orders were withdrawn on 16-11-2005.
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not heard before their appointment orders were withdrawn which represents a serious injury to their rights. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the said appointment orders were issued against the rules. The petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification on the prescribed date of their applications but had it subsequently on the date of their interview. Learned counsel for the petitioners in rebuttal adds that even if the petitioners' appointment orders were illegal, the rule laid down in Muhammad Shoaib and 2 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P. through the Collector, D.I. Khan and others (2005 SCMR 85) requires that such orders cannot be revoked without hearing and the employees under such illegal appointment orders cannot be punished for the wrongs of the appointing authority.
3. The foregoing plea of estoppel and locus poeintentiae, aimed at excluding adverse action against the petitioners, involves a defence relating to the merits. Presently, however, a valuable right belonging to the petitioners has been revoked by the impugned action without giving the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. Unless excluded by law, the rules of natural justice require that an order passed by a competent authority conferring rights on third parties cannot be recalled without serving a show-cause notice, granting hearing and giving valid grounds for the decision taken. Otherwise, not only would vested rights be subject to whim but also would the sanctity and force of the orders of the competent authority. Both consequence are not countenanced by the law.
4. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 16-11-2005 which were passed in violation of the rules of natural justice are declared to be illegal. As a result thereof the appointment orders of the petitioners stand revived. The respondents are, however, at liberty to take lawful proceedings against the petitioners and pass orders in accordance with law after giving them an opportunity of proper hearing to defend themselves. Petition is disposed of in the foregoing terms. S.A.K./S-92/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.