1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Present: Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, Chairman and Abdul Rashid Chaudhry, Members ASHIQ HUSSAIN and 2 others Versus SUPERINNTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN and 2 others
| Citation | 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Service Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, Chairman and Abdul Rashid Chaudhry, Members ASHIQ HUSSAIN and 2 others |
| Parties | Present: Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, Chairman and Abdul Rashid Chaudhry, Members ASHIQ HUSSAIN and 2 others Versus SUPERINNTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Service Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, Chairman and Abdul Rashid Chaudhry, Members ASHIQ HUSSAIN and 2 others.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Present: Ihsanul Haq Chaudhry, Chairman and Abdul Rashid Chaudhry, Members ASHIQ HUSSAIN and 2 others Versus SUPERINNTENDENT OF POLICE, MULTAN and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MA. Riaz for Appellants.
- Ch. Manzoor Hussain for Respondents.
- We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney for respondents and gone through the paper book. The learned counsel for the appellants in support of the appeal has argued: ‑
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Police Rules, 1934, R. 13.10(4)‑‑Appellants being successful in competitive examination, were admitted to List B‑1‑‑Such appellants having no; attained maximum age limit; respondent‑authority cancelled result of examination and removed their names from List B‑1‑‑Vires of action challenged in‑appeal‑‑Respondent‑authority had no powers to cancel result of competitive examination and List B‑I after it had taken effect‑‑Principle of locus poenitentiae being applicable, such order was held to be discriminatory in nature‑‑Appellant', case was remanded to authority for reconsideration of matter of relaxation it: tipper age limit, in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
(1) That the appellants have been meted with discriminatory treatment, therefore, the order of respondent No. 3 is bad in law. (2) That respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to cancel the result after the same having been acted upon. Learned counsel for the appellants in this behalf has placed reliance on two judgments of this Tribunal in case of Alamdar Hussain and seven others v. I.‑G.P, and others (Appeal No. 193/103 of 1985), Faqir Hussain and 3 others v. I.‑G.P. and 2 others (Appeal No. 177/804 of 1988). On the other hand learned District Attorney has argued that the matter of relaxation of upper age limit was purely discretionary matter and the decision cannot be made subject‑matter of appeal before the Tribunal. 1t is, however admitted that the appellant duly qualified the competitive examination, which was cancelled by respondent No. 2 and thereafter the appellants became over age. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments of both sides and gonc through the earlier decision of this Tribunal. In case of Alamdar Hussain etc. the Appellate Tribunal held: ‑ (i) That respondent No. 2 had no powers under rule 13.10(i) to cancel the result of competitive examination as well as List B‑1 after it has taken effect; (ii) That the principle of locus poenitentiae is applicable; and (iii) That the order was discriminatory. We need not advert to the other points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants because the case of the appellants is fully covered by the precedent case, which was followed in the case of Faqir Hussain etc. as mentioned above. The pleas of law and facts remain the same therefore we allow this appeal and remand it to respondent No. 3 for reconsideration of the matter of relaxation in upper age limit in accordance with law. The matter should be decided within 2 months. There is no order as to costs. AA./235/Sr. P ??????????? Appeal allowed.