1998 PLP 2362 (SCMR)
Malik MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2362 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Fazal Karim and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ |
| Parties | Malik MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2362 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2362 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Fazal Karim and Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2362 (SCMR) (Malik MUHAMMAD IQBAL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 7 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Muhammad Bashir, Deputy Attorney‑General for Respondents Nos.2 and 3. .
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.6.
- Date of hearing: 15th October, 1995.
- Raja Muhammad Bashir, Deputy Attorney-General for Respondents Nos.2 and 3. .
- Raja Muhammad Akram, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.6.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25‑1‑1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No.443(R) of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, Rr. 3(2) & 8(b)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)=‑‑Appointment in Corporate Law Authority as Chief (Legal Affairs) would require Deputy Chief to have five years' service at his credit for such promotion‑‑‑None of serving Deputy Chiefs having five years' service, relevant rule was amended in purported exercise of powers given by R. 3(2), Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, thus, paving way for appointment of respondent as Chief (Legal Affairs)‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Contention, inter alia, was that said amendment was inconsistent with S. 9, Civil Servants Act, 1973 as also R.8(3), Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973‑‑ Petitioner maintained that in case of conflict between R. 8(b) and amendment made in exercise of powers under R. 3(2) of the Rules, R. 8(b) would prevail and that would entitle petitioner to be appointed to post of Chief (Legal Affairs) on acting charge basis‑‑‑Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was granted to consider petitioner's contentions. Petitioner in person. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
FAZAL KARIM, J.
The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Chief (Legal) in (B-19) in the Corporate Law Authority on 4th May, 1989. In 1991 the sixth respondent Mr. Abdul Rehman Qureshi, who was at that time serving as Joint Registrar, was appointed as Chief (Legal Affairs) in (B-20). According to the rules, in order to be appointed as Chief (Legal Affairs), a Deputy Chief (B-19) had to have five years' service for promotion as Chief (Legal Affairs). As the petitioner or for that matter none of the other serving Deputy Chiefs (Legal) in (B-19) had at his credit five years' service, the relevant rule was amended in the purported exercise of the powers given by rule 3(2) of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, thus paving the way for the appointment of the sixth respondent as Chief (Legal Affairs).
2. The contention, inter alia, is that the said amendment was inconsistent with section 9 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 as also rule 8-B of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1973. The petitioner contended that in case of conflict between Rule 8-B and the amendment made in exercise of the powers under rule 3(2) of the said Act, rule 8(B) will prevail and that entitled the petitioner to be appointed to the post of Chief (Legal Affairs) on acting charge basis.
3. Leave to appeal is granted to consider these contentions. A.A./M-138/S Leave granted.