2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
SHAFIULLAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, through Secretary Education Department FATA Secretariat, Peshawar and 3 others
| Citation | 2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court (D.I. Khan Bench) |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Anwar and Shakeel Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | SHAFIULLAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, through Secretary Education Department FATA Secretariat, Peshawar and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court (D.I. Khan Bench) bench comprising: Ijaz Anwar and Shakeel Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SHAFIULLAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, through Secretary Education Department FATA Secretariat, Peshawar and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Umar Farooq Betani for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art.199
Constitutional petition
Scope
Petitioner sought review of order passed in constitutional petition with the plea that he being a disabled person was entitled to be considered for appointment as primary school teacher against the reserved quota of disabled persons
Ground raised in review petition was available to petitioner when the petition was argued but he did not raise the said contention at the relevant point of time
Petitioner had not sought appointment on the plea of disability
Petitioner was precluded from urging the contention in review proceedings which was not urged at the time of hearing
Assertion of petitioner did not constitute either an error apparent on the face of record or discovery of new and important facts and evidence on record, which grounds were sine qua non for exercising review jurisdiction
Review petition was dismissed in limine. Mian Rafique Saigal and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. and another PLD 1997 SC 865; Mst. Kalsoom Maliki and others v. Assistant Commissioner and others 1996 SCMR 710 and Daewoo Corporation v. Zila Council Jhang and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1213 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SHAKEEL AHMAD, J.
Shafi Ullah petitioner, through the present petition, seeks review of order dated 08.10.2018, rendered in Constitutional Petition No.879-D of 2017, whereby this Court dismissed the writ petition.
2. It was mainly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is a disabled person and he was entitled to be considered for appointment as PST against the reserved quota of disable persons.
3. We find that although the ground now agitated before us was available to the petitioner, when the petition was argued, yet as it is evident from the order under review, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not raise the said contention at the relevant point of time. Perusal of the prayer clause of the writ petition reflects that the appointment was not sought on the plea of disability. Thus, the petitioner is now precluded from urging the contention in review proceedings, which was not argued at the time of hearing the petition. In this behalf, reliance can be placed on the judgment reported as Mian Rafique Saigal and another v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. and another (PLD 1997 SC 865). Moreover, the assertion of the learned counsel did not constitute either an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important facts and evidence on record, which grounds are sine qua non for exercising review jurisdiction of this Court. In this context, reliance can well be placed on the judgment reported as Mst. Kalsoom Maliki and others v. Assistant Commissioner and others (1996 SCMR 710) and Daewoo Corporation v. Zila Council Jhang and 2 others (2004 SCMR 1213).
4. For what has been discussed above, this petition, being bereft of merits, is dismissed in limine. SA/7/P Review dismissed.