SAIRA RUBAB NASIR vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice art

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

SAIRA RUBAB NASIR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Policy making---Scope---Framing of government policy is to be undertaken by the Executive, which is in a better position to decide on account of its mandate, experience, wisdom and sagacity, which are acquired through diverse skills. Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS) 103 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case SAIRA RUBAB NASIR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice Legal right---Essential elements of a legal right stated: Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS) 103 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case SAIRA RUBAB NASIR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice Vested right---Scope---Right that so completely and definitely belongs to a person that it cannot be impaired or taken away without the person's consent is known to be a vested right---Such right is absolute, complete and unconditional to exercise of which no obstacle exists and which is immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contingency. Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS) 103 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case SAIRA RUBAB NASIR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice Deeming clause---Scope---Deeming clause is known as a legal fiction, which is not an actual reality but law recognizes the same and Court accepts it as a reality---In case of a legal fiction, Court believes something to exist which in reality does not exist; it is nothing but presumption of existence of state of affairs which in actuality is non-existent---Fact of such legal fiction is that a position which otherwise would not be obtained is deemed to be obtained under the circumstances---Purpose of importing deeming clause is to place artificial construction upon a word / phrase that would not otherwise prevail and sometimes it is to make the construction certain---Deeming clause is a fiction and cannot be extended beyond language of the section by which it is created or by importing another fiction. Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS) 103 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case SAIRA RUBAB NASIR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice Legislative intent---Court, function of---Scope---Function of Court is to discover true legislative intent while interpreting a statute---Words have to be given a clear, plain, unambiguous and reasonable meaning irrespective of the consequences---Words used by Legislature in any enactment or provision must be expounded in their natural or ordinary sense---When language is unambiguous and reflects only one meaning, no question of construction of statute arises, as the Act speaks for itself---Courts are not concerned with the policy involved or that the results are injurious or otherwise, which may follow from giving effect to the language used---If words used are capable of one construction only then it would not be open to Court to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more consistent with alleged object and policy of the Act---In considering whether there is ambiguity, the Court must look at the statute as a whole and consider appropriateness of meaning in a particular context avoiding absurdity and inconsistencies or unreasonableness which may render the statute unconstitutional. Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS) 103 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case SAIRA RUBAB NASIR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice art.199(1)(b)(ii)---Writ of quo warranto---Object, purpose and scope---Writ of quo warranto is in nature of laying information before Court, against the person who claims and usurps an office, franchise or liberty, requesting for holding an inquiry to enable him to show the authority under which he supported his claim to office, franchise or liberty---Object of writ of quo warranto is to determine the illegality of holder of statutory or constitutional office and decide whether he was holding such office in accordance with law or was unauthorized in occupying the public office. Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS) 103 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case SAIRA RUBAB NASIR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice arts. 7 & 8---Fundamental Rights State---Scope---State is prohibited under art.8 of the Constitution from enacting a law which takes away fundamental right conferred upon a citizen---State defined in art.7 of the Constitution includes the Parliament i.e. Legislature, as part of the State. Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS) 103 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case SAIRA RUBAB NASIR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Injunctive order---Effect---When an injunctive order is passed the same is to be considered after application of mind while considering facts and circumstances of case--- Such order remains in field till final adjudication or till its recalling or vacating order has been passed by Court. Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS) 103 ISLAMABADBookmark this Case SAIRA RUBAB NASIR VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice Ss.8(2)(a) & 49---Appointments of Members (Council and Board) Rules, 2021, R.8---Contractual employment---Regularization of service---Non-statutory rules---Effect---Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, vires of---Appointments of members of Council and Board, legality of---Petitioners were employees of erstwhile Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) and after creation of Pakistan Medical Commission (PMC) they sought their regularization---Appointments of members of PMDC and Board was also assailed on the plea that the same were non-transparent---Held, that all employees of erstwhile PMDC or PMC whether contractual, adhoc, temporary or permanent, were governed under non-statutory rules and regulations since inception of erstwhile PMDC---All employees including petitioners had no right to challenge legislative intent of Parliament in Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, where Parliament had settled terms and conditions of employment of all employees of erstwhile PMDC or PMC in terms of Ss.8(2) & 49 of Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020---Petitioners had no vested right in any manner to claim continuation of their service till age of superannuation---Provisions of Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020 were intra vires and were not in violation or against Fundamental rights of petitioners in any manner or employees of erstwhile PMDC---Appointments of respondents as members of PMDC through notification dated 25-09-2020 were illegal, non-transparent, without any selection process and against merits promoting favoritism and nepotism---As such protection given to respondents in terms of R.8 of Appointment of Members (Council and Board) Rules, 2021 was illegal as it was person specific and contrary to the parent statute, principles of fairness, ultra vires and against the concept and wisdom referred to in the Constitution and law--- Contractual employees of erstwhile PMDC seeking regularization after termination or expiry of their contract was a closed and past transaction and it could not be reagitated, even before new PMC like cases of other petitioners---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

SAIRA RUBAB NASIR vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice art — 2023 PLC(CS) 103 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLC