HAREEF AHMED KEERIO vs QUAID-E-AWAM UNIVERSITY art — 2025 PLC(CS) 343 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

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

HAREEF AHMED KEERIO VS QUAID-E-AWAM UNIVERSITY art. 199(1)(b)(ii)---Writ of quo warranto---Pre-requisites---Pre-requisites for issuance of writ of quo warranto are that the (i) the office in question must be public and created by a statute or Constitution itself, (ii) such office must be a substantive one and not merely the function of an employment of a servant at the will during the pleasure of others; and (iii) there must have been a contravention of the Constitution or a statute or statutory instrument by appointing a person to that office in as much as the holder of the post does not possess the prescribed qualification and/or the appointing authority is not the competent authority to make the appointment and/or the procedure prescribed by law has not been followed. art. 199(1)(b)(ii)---Writ of quo warranto---Scope---academic Posts in Quaid-e-awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology---Non-fulfillment of pre-requisite---Petitioner through separate constitutional petitions (three in number) challenged appointments of the respondents in writ of quo warranto---Respondent in first constitutional petition was no longer holding the posts in question, but was serving in Quaid-e-awam University of Engineering, Science and Technology, Nawabshah, as a Professor (BPS-21) under a fresh appointment through an advertisement followed by recommendation made by the Selection Board and approval conferred by the Syndicate---Consolidated statements of the marks secured by the candidates for the post of Lecturers, as relevant for the purpose of connected constitutional petition, reflected that the candidates obtained the first, second and third positions, respectively, in the recruitment process and that as far as the respondent (brother of respondent in first constitutional petition) was concerned, respondent (in first petition) had abstained from awarding any marks to him in the matter, having recused himself from any part in the selection to that extent, thus, it could not be said that the case was of one of nepotism---Respondent in third constitutional petition did not properly fall within the contours of quo warranto at all, as the relief as may have been extended to him by the High Court in earlier petitions could not be questioned or unsettled through such proceeding---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

HAREEF AHMED KEERIO vs QUAID-E-AWAM UNIVERSITY art — 2025 PLC(CS) 343 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC