2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ASIF and another Versus DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION PUNJAB and another
| Citation | 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASIF and another Versus DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION PUNJAB and another |
| Primary Law | (a) Administration of justice, (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Administration of justice, (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Falak Sher, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ASIF and another Versus DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION PUNJAB and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in both petitions).
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 20th December, 2004.
- 5. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioners at some length and have also examined the available record.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 16-5-2000 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeals Nos.1858 and 2249 of 1997).
Any person who had not come to the Courts with clean hands, was not entitled to any discretionary relief and even if some procedural illegality was shown to exist in the orders undoing the wrong, the Courts would not intervene to perpetuate a patently unjust, illegal and fraudulent act.
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Service Tribunal found as a fact that appointments of petitioners were made surreptitiously behind the closed doors to oblige petitioners to the prejudice of others who could be equally eligible and might be more qualified than petitioners and who stood deprived of their right to compete for said posts on account of misdeeds of petitioners
Case was not fit where Supreme Court, which was mandated to do complete justice, could interfere in terms of Art. 212(3) of the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
KHALIL-UR-REMAN RAMDAY, J.
Civil Petitions Nos. 1767-L and 1768-L of 2000 are being disposed of together as both these petitions arise out of the same consolidated impugned judgment involving similar facts.
2. The petitioners claim to have been appointed to the posts of Junior Clerks in the year 1995. Their services were terminated through an order dated 18-12-1996 by the then Care-Taker Government on account of their appointments being illegal/bogus.
3. The representations filed by them before the departmental authorities remained unsuccessful as a result whereof they finally reached the Punjab Service Tribunal with appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
4. Having examined the matter in some detail, the learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that the appointments in question had not been made by the competent Authorties, that the availability of the posts in question and had never been advertised inviting applications for the same, that fake dispatch numbers had been assigned to the fake orders as the issuance of the appointment orders did not find mention in the relevant dispatch registers and that in the circumstances such-like appointments which were illegal and frandulent could not be permitted to continue.
5. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioners at some length and have also examined the available record.
6. It is an established principle of administration of justice that any person who had not come to the Courts with clean hands was not entitled to any discretionary relief and even if some procedural illegality was shown to exist in the orders undoing the wrong, the Courts would not intervene to perpetuate a patently unjust, illegal and fraudulent act it was found as a fact by the learned Tribunal in the present case that the appointments were made surreptitiously behind the closed doors to oblige the petitioners to the prejudice of others who may be equally eligible and might be more qualified than the present petitioners and who stood deprived of their right to compete for the said posts on account of the misdeeds of the present petitioners.
7. In this view of the matter, we do not find this a case where this Court, which was mandated to do complete justice, could intervene in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed Leave refused. H.B.T./M-239/S Petitions dismissed.