2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
TANVEER AKHTAR Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others
| Citation | 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J |
| Parties | TANVEER AKHTAR Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (TANVEER AKHTAR Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Amin Dar, Asstt. A.‑G., Punjab for Respondents.
- 2. Respondents have appeared and have placed on record the parawise comments alongwith Annexures. The merit list has also been enclosed. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General submits that petitioner was never placed at No.5 or for that matter at any number of the merit list. He asserts that the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the same was not accompanied with the certificate issued by the Controller of Examinations Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad.
Judgment & Decree
Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioner. Muhammad Amin Dar, Asstt. A.‑G., Punjab for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th June, 2001. Case of the petitioner is that she contested for the post of PTC Teacher in pursuance advertisement in daily 'Nawa‑i‑Waqt' dated 5‑10‑1997. According to her she being duly qualified was placed at No.5 of the merit list. However, she was not considered for appointment because her PTC Certificate was issued by the Regional Office and not by the Islamabad Office of Allama Iqbal Open University.
2. Respondents have appeared and have placed on record the parawise comments alongwith Annexures. The merit list has also been enclosed. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General submits that petitioner was never placed at No.5 or for that matter at any number of the merit list. He asserts that the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the same was not accompanied with the certificate issued by the Controller of Examinations Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad.
3. When confronted learned counsel failed to show that the petitioner was placed at No.5 of the merit list and was not given the appointment because she failed to produce the certificate from the Controller of Examinations. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the claim of the petitioner. Resultantly this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. H.B.T./T‑48/L Petition dismissed.