1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
EHSAN ULLAH BAJWA Versus THE UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, LAHORE and 2 others
| Citation | 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | EHSAN ULLAH BAJWA Versus THE UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, LAHORE and 2 others |
| Primary Law | (b) University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, Leave Vacancy Rules 1986, (a) University of Engineering and Technology Lahore Act (V of 1974), (d) Mala fides |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, Leave Vacancy Rules 1986, (a) University of Engineering and Technology Lahore Act (V of 1974), (d) Mala fides, (c) University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, Leave Vacancy Rules 1986 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Malik Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (EHSAN ULLAH BAJWA Versus THE UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, LAHORE and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- A.K. Dogar for Petitioner.
- Sajjad Hussain for Respondents.
- Dates of hearing: 18th, 20th and 22nd April, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 32(2)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore
Leave Vacancy Rules, 1986, Preamble
No vested right to remain working on leave vacancy
Petitioner serving as Assistant Professor in the University of Engineering and Technology was appointed temporarily as Associate Professor against leave vacancy on terms and conditions that his appointment would be only till such time as leave vacancy existed; he would be reverted on date on which substantive post holder of vacancy reported back for duty; and that he would have no claim whatsoever against his reversion
Petitioner having accepted appointment as Associate Professor on such terms and conditions, could not claim any right to remain working as Associate Professor, when leave vacancy had ceased to exist, on permanent incumbent joining University.
No vested right to remain working on leave vacancy when permanent incumbent had joined such post
University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, Leave Vacancy Rules provide that holder of leave vacancy post would be reverted immediately when substantive holder of post had resumed duty.
Practice of upgrading post, in violation of Leave Vacancy Rules, 1986
Effect
Previous practice whereby some posts were upgraded and persons serving on leave vacancy were promoted would give no vested right to petitioner to claim right of promotion on that score
Such practice being violative of Rules was however, discontinued.
Petitioner failed to point out particular individual who had acted mala fide against him
Allegations of mala Fides were highly insufficient and vague
Mala fides had to be particularized and details thereof clearly mentioned in addition to requirement that person concerned should be impleaded as a party
Mala rides was not proved in circumstances. Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others PLD 1974 SC 151 ref.
Judgment & Decree
(b) University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, Leave Vacancy Rules 1986
No vested right to remain working on leave vacancy when permanent incumbent had joined such post
University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, Leave Vacancy Rules provide that holder of leave vacancy post would be reverted immediately when substantive holder of post had resumed duty. (c) University of Engineering and Technology Lahore, Leave Vacancy Rules 1986
Practice of upgrading post, in violation of Leave Vacancy Rules, 1986
Effect
Previous practice whereby some posts were upgraded and persons serving on leave vacancy were promoted would give no vested right to petitioner to claim right of promotion on that score
Such practice being violative of Rules was however, discontinued. (d) Mala fides
Petitioner failed to point out particular individual who had acted mala fide against him
Allegations of mala Fides were highly insufficient and vague
Mala fides had to be particularized and details thereof clearly mentioned in addition to requirement that person concerned should be impleaded as a party
Mala rides was not proved in circumstances. Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi v. Saeed Ahmad Khan and others PLD 1974 SC 151 ref. A.K. Dogar for Petitioner. Sajjad Hussain for Respondents. Dates of hearing: 18th, 20th and 22nd April, 1992.