Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS)N 9 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MIR AHMED vs EVACUEE TRUST BOAR

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

Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS)N 9 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MIR AHMED VS EVACUEE TRUST BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Quo warranto, writ of---Locus standi---Scope---Petitioner challenged the appointment of private respondents on deputation---authorities objected upon the locus standi of the petitioner---Validity---article 199(1)(c) of the Constitution did not necessarily require an aggrieved person to file application, rather on an application of any person, a High Court can make an order, requiring a person within its jurisdiction, holding or purporting to hold a public office to show under what authority of law, he claimed to hold that office---Object of the stated provision of the Constitution was to determine the legality of the holder of a public office---Once an information was received by a Court, it was under an obligation to inquiry from a person holding an office to show as to under which authority of law, he/she was lawfully holding the same---For invoking the jurisdiction of a High Court under art.199(1)(c) of the Constitution, it is not necessary for a person to be aggrieved, as such, any person having knowledge about any person holding a public office in violation of law has a locus standi to inform the Court through an application---Petitioner had locus standi to file the petition---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS)N 9 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MIR AHMED VS EVACUEE TRUST BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Para.3---Conditions of deputation---Maximum period of deputation---Scope---Petitioner challenged the appointment of private respondents on deputation---Validity---Paragraph 3 of the Balochistan Civil Servants' Deputation Policy, 2012, had mandated that an official could not be posted on deputation for more than 5 years throughout his career---Respondents were holding offices beyond 5 years---Respondents were holding the offices in provincial government without any lawful authority, which was an illegality---Authorities had failed to perform their functions, in accordance with law, which amounted to mis-exercise of authority vested in them---Constitutional petition was allowed and the official respondents were directed to repatriate the respondents to their parent department. Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS)N 9 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MIR AHMED VS EVACUEE TRUST BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN S.13---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 212---Constitutional petition---Quo warranto, writ of---Bar of jurisdiction---Officers and staff to be public servants---Scope---Petitioner challenged the appointment of private respondents on deputation---Respondents were the employees of Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB), who were appointed under S.12 of the Evacuee Trust Property Board (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 and according to S.13, they were public servants, but they were posted on deputation against cadre posts meant for civil servants---No provision in law existed which empowered the authority to post non-civil officer against a post meant for civil servants, as such, they were illegally holding the posts---Provisions of Art.212 of the Constitution also did not attract in the present case as respondents, being public servants, were not subject to the terms and conditions of a civil servant---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS)N 9 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MIR AHMED VS EVACUEE TRUST BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN art.199---Constitutional petition---Matter of public importance---Withdrawal of constitutional petition---Scope---Petitioner challenged the appointment of private respondents on deputation---Petitioner was strongly pursuing the petition, but all of sudden, he filed an application for withdrawal of petition---Through the constitutional petition, the petitioner being a citizen of the Province had pointed out illegalities and irregularities in the orders of the official respondents for appointment of private respondents on deputation---Petitioner had conveyed the information, consequently, the Court had taken cognizance of the matter, considering it as an issue of public interest---Once an illegality was brought into the knowledge of the Court and after taking notice upon the petition, it was the constitutional responsibility and obligation of High Court to inquire into the matter and ask the private respondents to show that under what law they were holding their offices---Petitioner had no personal interest in the petition, as such, pendency of the petition would not adversely affect him in any manner---No ground was available in the application which gave him a right to withdraw the petition, as such, in the given circumstances, the petitioner was not entitled to withdraw the petition---application was dismissed. Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS)N 9 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MIR AHMED VS EVACUEE TRUST BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Deputation---Selection of candidate---Scope---Private respondents (respondents) were initially appointed on work charge basis for a period of 88 days by the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) in the year 2010; later on, in the year 2011, their services were regularized; Government of Balochistan through Services and General Administration Department (S&GAD), in the year 2012, had requested the Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) for transfer of the services of respondents on deputation, which request was accepted and the services of respondents were placed at the disposal of Government of Balochistan on deputation for a period of 03 years; deputation period was further extended for two years in 2015; deputation and extension of respondents was challenged by the permanent members of the transferee department through a constitutional petition, which was allowed in the year 2015 and the respondents were directed to be repatriated to their parent department; again on the desire of the Chief Minister, Balochistan, the Principal Secretary in the year 2017 requested the ETPB for acquiring the services of respondents on deputation, which request was accepted; respondents joined the Government of Balochistan and upon completion of 02 years of deputation, their services were extended by the Chief Secretary for a further period of 02 years and it was through the present constitutional petition that the services of respondents as deputationist were challenged---Validity---None of the transferee departments had requested for acquiring services of the respondents nor had they showed their exigency or necessity---Selection Authority was under obligation to assess the expertise and experience of the respondents for the posts against which they were intended to be posted on deputation---Respondents were not appointed through the process of selection---Orders passed by official respondents with regard to transfer of respondents on deputation and subsequent extension in their period of deputation were illegal, unlawful and in excess of authority and jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstance and the authorities were directed to repatriate the respondents to their parent department.

Citation Name: 2023 PLC(CS)N 9 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTANBookmark this Case MIR AHMED vs EVACUEE TRUST BOARD, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN art — 2023 PLC(CS)N 9 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLC