2016 PLP 62 (GBLR)
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Syeda KISHWAR BATOOL — Respondent
| Citation | 2016 PLP 62 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Syeda KISHWAR BATOOL — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 62 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 62 (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: 2016 PLP 62 (GBLR) (PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Syeda KISHWAR BATOOL — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 4--- Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60---Appointment---Post of EST teacher in BPS-14 was lying vacant, whereupon respondent approached Deputy Director Education for her appointment, who recommended the case of the respondent to Director Education---Director Education further recommended the case to Secretary Education, who referred the matter to District Recruitment Committee/(DRC) to examine and issuing order of appointment---Four members of District Recruitment Committee/(DRC) recommended the respondent for appointment against said vacant post---Writ petition filed against said order was dismissed by the Chief Court---Validity---Advocate-General could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Chief Court in writ petition---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was dismissed---Impugned judgment passed by the Chief Court was maintained---Petitioners/Authorities were directed to appoint the respondent in the light of the recommendation of District Recruitment Committee (DRC).
- Advocate-General Gilgit-Baltistan for Petitioners.
- Muhammad Issa, Senior Advocate for Respondent.
- 2. The learned Advocate General contends that in the year 2011 one post of teacher EST BPS-14 was advertised. The candidate placed at serial No. 01 was appointed against the said post. He further contends that although one post of teacher EST BPS-14 was available in District Gilgit and the said post was not advertised. He also contends that consequently four (04) members of the DRC recommended the respondent along with one Shabina Karim daughter of Abdul Karim resident of Jalalabad Gilgit for appointment against the vacant post for village Oshikandass but the Chairman of the Board has not approved the minutes of the said DRC. No letter of appointment has been issued. He further submits that legal actions have been taken against the members of the DRC which are pending adjudication. He finally contends that the impugned judgment/order dated 08.03.2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court is the result of misconception of law and misreading/non-reading of the facts of the case, therefore, the same is required to be set aside.
- 4. We have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties at length, perused the record of the case file and gone through the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. The learned Advocate General for the petitioners could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment. Consequently, we converted this petition into an appeal and the same was dismissed vide our short order dated 14.06.2016. Consequent thereto the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2015 in Writ Petition No. 97/2012 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court was maintained. We have directed the petitioners/Provincial Government of Gilgit-Baltistan to appoint the respondent in the light of the recommendation of District Recruitment Committee (DRC) dated 09.05.2012. These were the reasons for our short order dated 14.06.2016.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 4
Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art.60
Post of EST teacher in BPS-14 was lying vacant, whereupon respondent approached Deputy Director Education for her appointment, who recommended the case of the respondent to Director Education
Director Education further recommended the case to Secretary Education, who referred the matter to District Recruitment Committee/(DRC) to examine and issuing order of appointment
Four members of District Recruitment Committee/(DRC) recommended the respondent for appointment against said vacant post
Writ petition filed against said order was dismissed by the Chief Court
Advocate-General could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Chief Court in writ petition
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by the Supreme Appellate Court and was dismissed
Impugned judgment passed by the Chief Court was maintained
Petitioners/Authorities were directed to appoint the respondent in the light of the recommendation of District Recruitment Committee (DRC).
Judgment & Decree
DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, C.J.
This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the impugned Judgment/order dated 18.03.2015 in Writ Petition No. 97/2012 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, whereby the said Writ Petition was dismissed being meritless. The petitioners being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with filed this petition for leave to appeal. This court vide order dated 08.03.2016 issued notice to the respondent and the case was fixed for final arguments on 14.06.2016.
2. The learned Advocate General contends that in the year 2011 one post of teacher EST BPS-14 was advertised. The candidate placed at serial No. 01 was appointed against the said post. He further contends that although one post of teacher EST BPS-14 was available in District Gilgit and the said post was not advertised. He also contends that consequently four (04) members of the DRC recommended the respondent along with one Shabina Karim daughter of Abdul Karim resident of Jalalabad Gilgit for appointment against the vacant post for village Oshikandass but the Chairman of the Board has not approved the minutes of the said DRC. No letter of appointment has been issued. He further submits that legal actions have been taken against the members of the DRC which are pending adjudication. He finally contends that the impugned judgment/order dated 08.03.2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court is the result of misconception of law and misreading/non-reading of the facts of the case, therefore, the same is required to be set aside.
3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent submits that applications were sought from eligible candidates for appointment as EST teachers BPS-14 in the year 2011 through advertisement. He further submits that the respondent got fifth position in the same test/interview. He submits that one Mrs. Kaneez of Jalalabad was appointed against one of the aforementioned posts of BPS-14 on 28.06.2012, during the course of which the respondent came to know that a post of EST teacher BPS-14 is lying vacant in Girls High School Oshikandass Gilgit whereupon the respondent approached petitioner No.04 for her appointment on the said vacant post of the above mentioned Union who recommended the case of respondent to the petitioner No. 03 for appointment vide office order/letter No. DDE-6-292/2010 (Admin) dated 02.05.2012. He further submits that the petitioner No. 03 further recommended the same vide office order No. D.E.-2(2)/2010 dated 04.05.2012 to petitioner No. 02 for appointment of the respondent. He further submits that the petitioner No. 02 after getting the recommendations of petitioners Nos. 04 and 05 referred the matter for DRC to examine and issuing order of appointment. He also submits that consequently four (04) members of the DRC recommended the respondent along with one Shabina Karim daughter of Abdul Karim resident of Jalalabad Gilgit for appointment against the vacant post for village Oshikandass. He further submits that the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court has rightly allowed the Writ Petition No. 97/2012 of the respondent vide judgment dated 08.03.2015 which is in accordance with law and facts of the case, hence, no interference is warranted into it and the same is required to be maintained to meet the ends of justice.
4. We have heard the learned counsels for the respective parties at length, perused the record of the case file and gone through the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. The learned Advocate General for the petitioners could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment. Consequently, we converted this petition into an appeal and the same was dismissed vide our short order dated 14.06.2016. Consequent thereto the impugned judgment dated 08.03.2015 in Writ Petition No. 97/2012 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court was maintained. We have directed the petitioners/Provincial Government of Gilgit-Baltistan to appoint the respondent in the light of the recommendation of District Recruitment Committee (DRC) dated 09.05.2012. These were the reasons for our short order dated 14.06.2016.
5. The appeal is dismissed in above terms. HBT/90/GB Appeal dismissed.