1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
| Citation | 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Shaikh Abdul Mannan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER |
| Primary Law | Civil service‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Shaikh Abdul Mannan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (GHULAM MUSTAFA Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Asmat Kamal Khan for Petitioner
- Petitioner was appointed as PTC teacher on 22‑7‑1990 and his services were terminated on 19‑4‑1993 due to production of bogus PTC result card at the time of appointment. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently questions this finding and argues that this is based on no evidence with the Deputy District Education Officer who passed the order. It is further submitted that petitioner filed an appeal/representation on 27‑4‑1993 before the District Education Officer, Gujrat but no action has so far‑been taken. It is also contended that this being a service matter, D.E.O. should have decided the case on priority basis. The representation filed before the D.E.O. is annexed as Annexure `K.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner was appointed as PTC teacher on 22‑7‑1990 and his services were terminated on 19‑4‑1993 due to production of bogus PTC result card at the time of appointment. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently questions this finding and argues that this is based on no evidence with the Deputy District Education Officer who passed the order. It is further submitted that petitioner filed an appeal/representation on 27‑4‑1993 before the District Education Officer, Gujrat but no action has so far‑been taken. It is also contended that this being a service matter, D.E.O. should have decided the case on priority basis. The representation filed before the D.E.O. is annexed as Annexure `K. 2. 1 have heard the learned counsel and find that there is considerable force in his plea that representation of petitioner ought to have been decided on priority basis. I, therefore, direct the said officer to decide the representation/appeal of petitioner within a month. Disposed of. AA./G‑200/L Order accordingly.