Home Maxims & Terms Experience meaning in Urdu
Word Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Experience

Experience legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2004 PLC(CS) 1110 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
"Experience"

Meaning.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Experience", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/39006

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Experience"

SCMR 2023
Civil Appeal No. 64 of 2022, decided on 30th May, 2022.

2023 S C M R 848

FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD and another — Appellants Versus Dr. SHAHID HANIF — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 1989
Amended Writ Petition No.422 of 1986, decided on 20th September, 1988.

P L D 1989 Peshawar 7

Mrs. FARIDA BEG UM Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.‑W.F.P. HEALTH AND SOCIAL

Court: ‑‑‑R. 3(2)‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑Post of Warden (female)‑‑Petitioner's application rejected for lack of experience after achieving requisite academic qualifications‑‑Advertisement for the post though mentioned educational qualifications yet did not specify experience to be gained after attaining educational qualifications‑ Effect‑‑Policy Decision No. 7 of the North‑West Frontier Province Public Service Commission, specifies that an advertisement would contain a note where experience forms part of requisite qualifications, that only such experience would be considered which had been gained after acquiring the minimum educational qualification‑‑Advertisement for the post, however, had not been found appended to any such note and in absence thereof, experience for the post could not be confined only to post graduate experience‑‑Disqualification of petitioner for the post of warden for want of requisite experience after post graduation and not counting her pre‑post graduation experience, was without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑‑Public Service Commission was directed by High Court, to acknowledge and accept petitioner as eligible candidate for the said post and to take her examination /interview within specified time.‑‑Civil service.
PLC(CS) 2019
Civil Petition No. 2982 of 2016, decided on 19th December, 2018.

2019 P L C (C

YAQUB ALI KHAN Versus FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION through Chairman and another

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 2019
Civil Petition No. 2982 of 2016, decided on 19th December, 2018.

2019 S C M R 413

YAQUB ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION through Chairman and another — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLC(CS)N 2018
W.P. No.291-M of 2015, decided on 21st June, 2016.

2018 P L C (C

SHAUKAT ALI Versus CHAIRMAN KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and 68 others

Court: Peshawar High Court (Mingora Bench)
PLC(CS) 2008
Constitutional Petition No.1779 of 2007, decided on 15th May, 2008.

2008 P L C (C

Dr. RASHID AHMAD Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Food Agriculture and Livestock, Islamabad and 2 others

Court: Karachi High Court
PLC(CS) 2005
Writ Petition No.45 of 2004, decided on 13th July, 2004.

2005 P L C (C

Mst. FARAH ZAHRA Versus BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE AREA STUDY CENTRE FOR AFRICA AND NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA, QUAID‑I‑AZAM UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD through Chairman Vice‑Chancellor and another

Court: Lahore High Court
SCMR 1993
Civil Appeal No. 706 of 1992, decided on 28th June, 1993.

1993 S C M R 2275

FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus SUFLAN ASLAM ‑‑‑ Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLC(CS) 2020
W.P. No.1168-A of 2015, decided on 7th November, 2018.

2020 P L C (C

Dr. AMJAD FAROOQ, SENIOR REGISTRAR SURGICAL DEPARTMENT, ABBOTTABAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, through Secretary Health, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and 6 others

Court: Peshawar High Court (Abbottabad Bench)
SCMR 1984
Civil Appeal No. 658 of 1984, decided on 19th June, 1984.

1984 S C M R 1499

MUHAMMAD MUMTAZUL HASAN‑‑Appellant Versus ATA ULLAH MEHAR and others‑‑Respondents

Court: High Court