Hafiz SALMAN AHMED vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, SAHIWAL art

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

Hafiz SALMAN AHMED VS BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, SAHIWAL art.199---Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and accountability act (XII of 2006), Ss. 2(h)(i), 16 & 19---Contract employee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE)---Non-availing of alternate remedy of departmental appeal---Direct filing of constitutional petition---Maintainability---Rule regarding invoking constitutional jurisdiction in terms of art. 199 of the Constitution, only after exhausting all other remedies, is one of convenience and discretion by which the court regulates its proceedings and is not a rule of law affecting the jurisdiction of High Court---Constitutional petition is competent if an order is passed by a court or authority by exceeding its jurisdiction or exercising its jurisdiction in an arbitrary, illegal or unjust manner, even if the remedy of appeal/revision against such order is available, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case---Extraordinary jurisdiction under art. 199 of the Constitution is envisioned predominantly for affording an express remedy where the unlawfulness and impropriety of the action of an executive or other governmental authority could be substantiated without any inquiry---Expression "adequate remedy" signifies an effectual, accessible, advantageous and expeditious remedy---Respondents had purportedly proceeded against the petitioner by invoking the provisions contained in a statute i.e. PEEDa, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to adhere to safeguards supplied in the same statute, however, the mandatory provisions of the same statute had been violated by the respondents and major penalty of removal from service had been handed to the petitioner without even a proper inquiry, thus, throwing the petitioner at the mercy of same authorities---Non-suiting the petitioner at this juncture for not availing the departmental appeal was neither just nor appropriate---In terms of S. 19 read with S. 2(h)(i) of PEEDa petitioner had no remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal and as the petitioner was proceeded against on the basis of the provisions contained in PEEDa and the provisions of PEEDa were violated by the respondents for denying an opportunity of fair hearing through a regular inquiry, thus, constitutional petition was maintainable.

Hafiz SALMAN AHMED vs BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, SAHIWAL art — 2025 PLC(CS) 1173 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC