SAMINAH SULAIMAN vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GILGIT-BALTISTAN, through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Secretariat Gilgit School teachers — 2025 PLC 1065 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Citation: 2025 PLC 1065 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Year: 2025
Reporter: PLC
Parties: SAMINAH SULAIMAN vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GILGIT-BALTISTAN, through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Secretariat Gilgit School teachers
Subject matter: Constitutional

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

Judgment text as reported

SAMINAH SULAIMAN VS PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GILGIT-BALTISTAN, through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Secretariat Gilgit School teachers---Appointment---Criteria (terms and conditions) mentioned in the advertisement, violation of---Effect---Record revealed that the Official Respondents had advertised some posts of Elementary School Teachers BS-14 Education Department GB for Union Council Nagar-I---The whole procedure of test/interview and selection had been completed---Admittedly, the Official Respondents had violated the terms and conditions of the advertisement during the process of induction as criteria for selection of candidates as given in relevant para of the advertisement showed that 70% marks from written test, 15% marks from the academics and 15% marks from the interview were to be counted/calculated for final selection of the candidate--- But, interestingly and astonishingly, the Official Respondents had taken into consideration only one condition of the said criteria, i.e. 70% marks from the written test, whereas, the remaining two condition(s), i.e. 15% for academic and interview, each had not been taken into consideration---Said act of the Official Respondents was utter and sheer violation of terms and conditions/rules of the advertisement, which tantamount to the infringement of fundamental rights of the petitioner---Undeniably, the petitioner had got second position by securing 41.95% and the private respondent (candidate) had got 3rd position by securing 40.85%---Private respondent had been appointed by the Official Respondents for reasons better known to them by bulldozing the fundamental right of the petitioner---Chief Court directed the Official Respondents to re- examine (consider) the case of the petitioner while the appointment of private respondent would remain intact---Writ petition was allowed accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC

2025 PLC(CS) 1593 SUPREME-COURTPROVINCE OF SINDH VS AMANULLAH 'Mutatis mutandis'---Connotation---Expression mutatis mutandis generally applies for making certain adjustmen…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION R. 11---Identical cases, entertaining of---Scope ---Petitioner, while relying on R. 11 o…
2025 PLC(CS) 606 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRGHAZANFAR ALI VS VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR Principle---adequate alternate remedy----Under common law, remedy of…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Conduct of the party invoking writ jurisdiction of High Court---Scope and effect ---Peti…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION administration of justice---Points ascertained at time of admission of case---Subsequent…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Doctrine of laches---Indolence of aggrieved party---Effect---Petitioner filed the writ p…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English