1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD AKBAR Versus D.I.‑G. POLICE and others
| Citation | 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AKBAR Versus D.I.‑G. POLICE and others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Ihsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD AKBAR Versus D.I.‑G. POLICE and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sardar Munir Ahmad Gill for Petitioner.
- Rana Muhammad Arshad, Addl. A.‑G. and Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1990.
- Rana Muhammad Arshad, Addl. A.-G. and Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for Respondents.
- 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is serving with the Punjab Police and he appeared in the departmental examination held in October, 1989, and qualified the same. The result was that his name was placed in promotion list `A'. The petitioner, thereafter, appeared in `B-1' examination and also passed the same. The grievance of' the petitioner is that his name has been removed from list `A' Therefore, as a natural consequence his name has not been included in list `B-1' in spite of the fact that he had passed the examination. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14-5-1990 through this petition which was admitted to regular hearing on 10-11-1990 and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have entered appearance through Rana Muhammad Arshad, Additional Advocate-General.
- 4. The learned Additional Advocate-General submits that it is not possible for him to defend the order passed without hearing the petitioner especially m view of the decision of Writ Petition No. 3880 of 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Petitioner appeared in departmental examination and after qualifying same, his name was placed in promotion list‑‑‑Authority concerned, removed name of petitioner from promotion list without hearing petitioner and without calling for his explanation on sole basis that petitioner had not completed three years' tenure before his name was put on promotion list‑‑‑Petitioner did not take departmental examination by misrepresentation of fact as to length of service, but it was Authority concerned who allowed him to take examination with open eyes‑‑‑ Authority in circumstances was estopped by its own conduct to reconsider matter‑‑‑Order removing name of petitioner from promotion list, otherwise passed without hearing petitioner, could not be sustained‑‑‑High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside order of Authority below.
Judgment & Decree
Sardar Munir Ahmad Gill for Petitioner. Rana Muhammad Arshad, Addl. A.-G. and Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1990. The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has sought a declaration that the impugned order dated 14-5-1990 is illegal, unlawful, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner is serving with the Punjab Police and he appeared in the departmental examination held in October, 1989, and qualified the same. The result was that his name was placed in promotion list `A'. The petitioner, thereafter, appeared in `B-1' examination and also passed the same. The grievance of' the petitioner is that his name has been removed from list `A' Therefore, as a natural consequence his name has not been included in list `B-1' in spite of the fact that he had passed the examination. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 14-5-1990 through this petition which was admitted to regular hearing on 10-11-1990 and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have entered appearance through Rana Muhammad Arshad, Additional Advocate-General.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that the impugned order has been passed on the sole basis that the petitioner has not completed three years' tenure as Constable before his name was put on list `A'. It is submitted that the petitioner did not take examination by misrepresentation of facts as to the length of service. It was the respondents, who allowed him take examination with open eyes. Therefore, the age will be deemed to have been relaxed in case of the petitioner and the respondents were estopped by their own conduct to reconsider the matter. It is submitted that respondent No. 2 has passed the order without hearing the petitioner or calling for his explanation. The arguments are summed up with the submission that the impugned order was subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 3880 of 1990 which was accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 25-9-1990. The respondents have not cared to controvert the factual position by filing a written statement.
4. The learned Additional Advocate-General submits that it is not possible for him to defend the order passed without hearing the petitioner especially m view of the decision of Writ Petition No. 3880 of 1990.
5. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14-5-1990 of respondent No. 2 is set aside with costs. H.B.T./M-2762/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.