GBLR 2014

2012-14 PLP 54 (GBLR)

IKHLAQ HUSSAIN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, 18-MW HYDRO POWER PROJECT NALTAR GILGIT — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HASSAN, SUB-ENGINEER and 7 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Appellate Court
Decided Date
N/A
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2012-14 PLP 54 (GBLR)
Forum / Court Supreme Appellate Court
Bench Members N/A
Parties IKHLAQ HUSSAIN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, 18-MW HYDRO POWER PROJECT NALTAR GILGIT — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HASSAN, SUB-ENGINEER and 7 others — Respondents
Primary Law Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012-14 PLP 54 (GBLR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012-14 PLP 54 (GBLR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2012-14 PLP 54 (GBLR) (IKHLAQ HUSSAIN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, 18-MW HYDRO POWER PROJECT NALTAR GILGIT — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HASSAN, SUB-ENGINEER and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009

Headnotes / Summary

Arts. 81 & 71

Civil service

Appointment

Chief Court, while accepting the writ petition of respondents declared the appointment of the petitioner as void and without lawful authority and also directed the department to fill up the vacant post of Assistant Engineer afresh

Petitioner, who was B.Sc. (Engineering), initially was appointed as a Sub-Engineer on work charge basis at a fixed pay of Rs.3500 per month for a period of six months, later on, he was adjusted against vacant post as an Assistant Engineer in BPS-16 on regular basis on creation of regular post of Assistant Engineer

Respondents, who were diploma holders, were appointed as Sub-Engineers in BPS-11, being aggrieved with direct appointment of the petitioner against vacant post of Assistant Engineer filed writ petition before the Chief Court which was accepted, and Chief Court declared the appointment of the petitioner as illegal and against the relevant service rules

Method of appointment for the post of Assistant Engineer, BPS-16, under Rules framed by Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas, was by 100% promotion from amongst the Sub-Engineers BPS-11, along with 5 years experience in the relevant field and for filling up a post meant for promotion or selection, no advertisement was required

Recommendations of Departmental Promotion or Selection Committee, were to be considered for promotion of eligible incumbent

Respondents, without seeking redressal of their grievance from the proper forum, directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of Chief Court, which allowed the writ and granted the relief as prayed for by the respondents

Validity

Writ jurisdiction was an extraordinary jurisdiction which could be exercised in special circumstances, where no other remedy was available to the petitioner, otherwise the court could decline to press into service its writ jurisdiction

Respondents, in the present case, without availing the opportunity to approach the concerned authorities/forums had voiced their grievance through writ jurisdiction of the Chief Court

Chief Court, in circumstances, ought to have dismissed the writ petition being not maintainable

Appeal was allowed and impugned judgment was set aside, in circumstances.