1991 PLP 1803 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1803 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1803 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1803 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1803 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Haroonur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th January, 1990.
- Sh. Haroonur Rashid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 29-2-88 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, in Appeal No.874/798 of 1985).
Art. 212(3)
Petitioner though was senior to respondent in grade of Civil Judges, but Provincial Selection Board while considering promotion of Civil Judges to rank of Additional Sessions Judges declared petitioner unfit on account of indifferent service record and on the other hand approved respondent No.2 for promotion
Petitioner having been specifically superseded by respondent could not claim seniority over the latter in the grade of Additional District and Sessions Judges.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑The petitioner is an Additional District and Sessions Judge. He has been placed junior to respondent No. 2 in the seniority list of Additional District and Sessions Judges. His departmental representation as well as the appeal before the Provincial Service Tribunal have failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Admittedly, in the grade of Civil Judges, the petitioner was senior to respondent No.
2. However, on 8‑5‑1979, the Provincial Selection Board while considering promotion of Civil Judges to the rank of Additional Sessions Judges declared him unfit on account of indifferent service record. On the other hand, it approved respondent No. 2 for promotion. Thus, the petitioner stood superseded by respondent No.
2. The petitioner was not approved for promotion till 10‑3‑1981. Since the petitioner was specifically superseded by respondent No. 2, he could not claim seniority over the latter in the grade of Additional District and Sessions Judges. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./H‑1310/S Petition dismissed.