2016 PLP 5 (GBLR)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----S. 4--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 60---Appointment, cancellation of---Petition for leave to appeal---Chief Court in writ petition had passed order whereby cancellation of appointment was set aside declaring the same as illegal and without lawful authority---Advocate-General, could not show any illegality and infirmity in the judgment/order by the Chief Court---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by Supreme Appellate Bench and was dismissed---Judgment/order passed by the Chief Court was maintained.
• Advocate-General along with Ali Nazar Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
• Malik Shafqat Wali, Senior Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.1.
• Johar Ali Khan, Advocate on behalf of Respondent No.2.
• 2. The learned Advocate General submits that the petitioners had already appointed two family members of the respondent No. 01 in return of his land which was acquired by the Provincial Government for the construction of Civil Dispensary Khaltaro District Gilgit. The petitioners upon knowing the fact has rightly cancelled the appointment order of the respondent No. 01 vide office order No. 1408-DHQ/Estb/2005 dated 27.10.2011. He also submits that the newly arrayed respondent was appointed as Grade-1 purely on merit basis while adopting the prescribed law and rule. He further submits that the respondent No. 01 was not qualifying for the said post being a minor against which he had inadvertently been appointed which was later on reversed keeping in view this ground. He finally submits that the impugned judgment/order dated 16.10.2012 in Writ Petition No.103/2011 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court is not sustainable and liable to be set aside being the said is the result of misconception of law and misreading/non-reading of the facts of the case.
• 3. On the other hand, Mr. Malik Shafqat Wali, learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No.01 supports the impugned judgment/order as according to him the same is well reasoned and well founded. He contends that no interference into the said impugned judgment/order is warranted in the interest of justice and equity. He contends that additional documents have been submitted by him in which the copy of the CNIC and School Leaving Certificate of the respondent No. 01 has been attached. The careful perusal of the said documents reveals that the respondent was not minor (below the age of seventeen years) at the time of his appointment as Grade-01 in Civil Dispensary Khaltaro District Gilgit. Mr. Johar Ali Khan, learned Advocate for respondent No. 02 also supports the impugned judgment/order dated 16.10.2012 in Writ Petition No. 103/2011 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. He submits that the said impugned order may please be maintained being well reasoned and in accordance with law and facts.
• 4. We have heard the learned Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan as well as both the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 at length, perused the record of the case file and gone through the impugned judgment/order dated 16.10.2012 in Writ Petition No. 103/2012 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. The learned Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan could not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment/order dated 16.10.2012 in Writ Petition No.103/2011 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. Consequently, we converted this petition into an appeal and the same was dismissed vide our short order dated 13.05.2016. These are the reasons for the said short order. In view of the above discussions the impugned judgment/order dated 16.10.2012 in Writ Petition No. 103/2011 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court was also maintained vide the said short order.

Headnotes / Summary

Judgment & Decree