1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ZIA‑UL‑HAQ Versus DEPUTY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, TEHSIL KAMALIA, DISTRICT TOBA TEK SINGH and 4 others
| Citation | 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Munir A. Sheikh, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZIA‑UL‑HAQ Versus DEPUTY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, TEHSIL KAMALIA, DISTRICT TOBA TEK SINGH and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Munir A. Sheikh, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ZIA‑UL‑HAQ Versus DEPUTY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, TEHSIL KAMALIA, DISTRICT TOBA TEK SINGH and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rana Muhammad Arif for Petitioner.
- Hasnat Ahmad Khan, A.A.‑G. for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Appointment‑‑‑Civil servant despite having passed Matriculation Examination in First Division and being entitled to be appointed to the post of P.T.C. Teacher, was ignored and instead civil servant who passed Matriculation Examination in Second Division was appointed‑‑‑Civil servant who was entitled to be appointed against the post having been ignored without any fault of his‑‑‑Authority was directed to appoint civil servant against available seat because the ban imposed by Government subsequently was not applicable to the case of civil servant as he was deprived of his right of appointment on merit at the time when others were appointed and ban was not there.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Muhammad Arif for Petitioner. Hasnat Ahmad Khan, A.A.‑G. for Respondents. Report and parawise comments have been submitted in which it has been admitted that according to merit position the petitioner was entitled to get appointment but inadvertently he was considered to have obtained 60 marks instead of 70 marks which he actually obtained.
2. Ghulam Hussain Waraich. Deputy District Education Officer, states that one seat is still available and the department would have appointed the petitioner but the Government has imposed ban on fresh recruitments. When questioned he submitted that the order of the Provincial Government imposing ban was issued subsequent to the appointments made by the departmental authority.
3. Since the appointment of the petitioner could not be made inadvertently which is not the fault of the petitioner, therefore, against one available seat the petitioner shall be appointed as the ban imposed by the Provincial Government subsequently would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner as he was deprived of his right of appointment on merit at the time when the others were appointed when the ban had not been imposed.
4. The respondents are hereby directed to appoint the petitioner as P.T.C. Teacher. The writ petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./M‑329/L Petition allowed.