1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ QURESHI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and another
| Citation | 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FAROOQ QURESHI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and another |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 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 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD FAROOQ QURESHI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shabbir Ahmad Lali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199--Employees' claim to a post of their own choice merely on basis of seniority--Appointment to a particular post was purely an administrative matter and employees, therefore, had no vested right to claim a post of their own choice--Order of employees' repatriation to their part department, as a result of economy measure by the Government concerning all employees working in the leave vacancies was equally applicable to petitioner employees--Petitions being devoid of merit were thus not maintainable. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A.-G. for the State.
Judgment & Decree
This order shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 1541 and 1542 of 1989, involving identical questions of law and facts.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioners are Veterinary Officers in the Directorate of Poultry Research Institute, Rawalpindi. They were transferred on 27-12-1987 to the Veterinary Institute, Lahore Cantonment, purely on temporary basis against leave vacancies upto 31-10-1988. As a result of the economy measure, salary budget was withdrawn by the Punjab Government and all the officers working in the leave vacancies were ordered to be repatriated to the parent department including the petitioners. The petitioners did not comply with the Punjab Government's orders by relinquishing the charge of the post held by them at the Veterinary Research Institute, Lahore, and instead invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners' case has been misunderstood by the departmental authorities while giving report to this Court, inasmuch as, the petitioners are not interested to continue to work on temporary basis in the Veterinary Research Institute, Lahore Cantonment. Their grievance is that these vacancies of Research Veterinary Officers occurred at Research Institute, Lahore during the period from December; 1987 to July, 1988. Six Officers, namely, Dr. Khawar Mehboob, Dr Mateen Qadri, Dr. 4amar Rata Khan, Dr. Shuaib Anwar and Dr Anwarul Haq have been hosted as Veterinary Officers (Research) but the petitioners were ignored notwithstanding tile fact that they a- e senior to them.
4. Learned counsel also argued that the petitioners have not been appointed to the post of Research Officer for ulterior motive with a view to accommodate the two appointees, namely, Dr. Shuaib Anwar and Dr. Ikramul Haq who were ad hoc employees. Initially, their names were never recommended by the Public Service Commission for this Institute, notwithstanding that the Government issued Notification for their appointment to this Institute.
5. The contentions have no force II is an admitted fact the post presently held by the petitioners as Veterinary Officers (Research) in their parent department is of the same grade and equivalent to the post of Veterinary Officer (Research) in tile Institute by all standards The petitioners have, therefore, no vested right to claim a post of their own choice merely on the basis of senior" This is purely an administrative matter which is not open to challenge in the circumstances of the present case.
6. It is next contended that the order of petitioners' repatriation is bad in law, inasmuch as, the Directorate of Federal Research Institute has no jurisdiction to repatriate them. The Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Government of Punjab, alone was competent to repatriate them.
7. The contention is untenable As pointed out above, as a result (d economy measure. the salary budget was withdrawn by the Punjab Government and all 6f6ccrs working in the leave vacancies were ordered to be repatriated to the parent department. This order is equally applicable to the petitioners.
8. In view of the above, I find no force in the writ petitions, which are hereby dismissed in limine. AA./M-1493/L Petitions dismissed.