Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    CP 1611/2007: Capt. Haroon Abdullah Versus PIAC & Others

    Uploaded by

    averos12
    A constitutional petition was brought by Capt. Haroon Abdullah against PIAC regarding his promotion. The two judges hearing the case disagreed on whether the petition was maintainable. One judge held it was not maintainable as there was no vested right to promotion. The other judge found the order being challenged was void. As the judges disagreed, the case was referred to a referee judge to determine the single point of disagreement - the maintainability of the writ petition. Established case law holds that constitutional petitions seeking enforcement of non-statutory rules of a statutory corporation are not maintainable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    CP 1611/2007: Capt. Haroon Abdullah Versus PIAC & Others

    Uploaded by

    averos12
    100 views3 pages
    A constitutional petition was brought by Capt. Haroon Abdullah against PIAC regarding his promotion. The two judges hearing the case disagreed on whether the petition was maintainable. One judge held it was not maintainable as there was no vested right to promotion. The other judge found the order being challenged was void. As the judges disagreed, the case was referred to a referee judge to determine the single point of disagreement - the maintainability of the writ petition. Established case law holds that constitutional petitions seeking enforcement of non-statutory rules of a statutory corporation are not maintainable.

    Original Description:

    law

    Original Title

    Competency

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    A constitutional petition was brought by Capt. Haroon Abdullah against PIAC regarding his promotion. The two judges hearing the case disagreed on whether the petition was maintainable. One judge held it was not maintainable as there was no vested right to promotion. The other judge found the order being challenged was void. As the judges disagreed, the case was referred to a referee judge to determine the single point of disagreement - the maintainability of the writ petition. Established case law holds that constitutional petitions seeking enforcement of non-statutory rules of a statutory corporation are not maintainable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    100 views3 pages

    CP 1611/2007: Capt. Haroon Abdullah Versus PIAC & Others

    Uploaded by

    averos12
    A constitutional petition was brought by Capt. Haroon Abdullah against PIAC regarding his promotion. The two judges hearing the case disagreed on whether the petition was maintainable. One judge held it was not maintainable as there was no vested right to promotion. The other judge found the order being challenged was void. As the judges disagreed, the case was referred to a referee judge to determine the single point of disagreement - the maintainability of the writ petition. Established case law holds that constitutional petitions seeking enforcement of non-statutory rules of a statutory corporation are not maintainable.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    CP 1611/2007: Capt.

    Haroon Abdullah versus PIAC & Others


    The above-noted constitutional petition was heard by a bench of two learned
    judges who differed in their opinion as to the competency/maintainability of the
    petition u/s 199 of the Constitution. One Judge held that it was incompetent as
    petitioner has no vested right to seek promotion. While on the other hand the other
    learned judge is of the opinion that writ is maintainable as order impugned against
    in the writ petition was void ab initio. The case is now before a referee judge.
    The referee judge has jurisdiction to hear those points only, whether of law or
    facts, on which judges of division bench were at difference. Rehearing of case
    would be without jurisdiction by the referee Judge. (PLD 1974 SC 257; PLD
    1955 Lahore 1). The point in difference appears to be the maintainability of the
    writ petition. At least this is the point where learned judges parted their ways and
    delivered a partitioned judgment: one of them dismissed the petition on the ground
    of non-maintainability, while other deciding the case on merits allowed the
    petition.
    It is settled law that a constitutional petition seeking enforcement of non-statutory
    rules by an employee of a statutory corporation is incompetent and is liable to be
    dismissed in limine. 1992 SCMR 1093. (University of the Punjab versus Ch.
    Sardar Ali).
    It is quite true that where an alternate remedy exists (here a civil suit or
    departmental appeal), it is in discretion of the Court to hear a constitutional
    petition. But this discretion is now governed by the rulings of Supreme Court,
    which clearly lay down that a constitutional petition agitating rights under nonstatutory rules is liable to be dismissed in limine.
    There is no judgment of the Supreme Court where Supreme Court has upheld the
    exercise of the Constitutional jurisdiction for the enforcement of rights based on
    non-statutory rules of a statutory corporation.

    1992 PLC 637


    PLD 1980 K 609

    PLD 1992 K 190


    2001 PLC CS 207
    PLD 1987 SC 172 (no vested right in promotion or rules determining eligibility of
    promotion)
    1985 PSC 1190

    You might also like