PLJ 1998 Supreme Court 602
Present to: SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN AND SH. IJAZ NlSAR,
MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN and 11 others
Versus
GOVT. OF N.-W.F.P., through CHIEF SErRETARY. PESHAWAR and 4 others
--S. 7 read with Rule 3 and Schedule 'A' of N.-W F.P. Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1983-Prayer for leave to appeal against dismissed Constitutional petition-Contention that petitioners were appointed as civil judge-cwm-judicial Magistrates, persuant to selection made by a committee comprising, amongst others, four learned Judges of High Court after holding written test and interview, on contract basis for a period of one year which period was later extended for one year more by Government-Learned Chief Justice recommended to Government to regularise appointments as petitioners had two years judicial experience to their credit but this recommendation was not accepted by Government-Petitioners challenge refusal of Government to appoint them on regular basis by filing Constitutional petition before High Court seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to appoint them as Civil Judge-cum-judicial Magistrates-Held : Learned Judges of the High Court, were, right in observing that issuance of direction prayed for would be violative of law namely, section 7 of the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978 read with Rule 3 and Schedule 'A' of the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1983 which prescribe that appointments to the post in the Province in BPS-16 to 20 are to be made on advice of Public Service Commission, based ontest and examination conducted by Commission for the purpose, and thatthe posts held by petitioners being in BPS-17 can only be filled up in themanner prescribed in law-Concept of independence of judiciary1 does notmake judiciary above the law--Rather, obedience to law and strictadherence thereto by judiciary will ensure its independence and enhanceits prestige-Moreover, only such recommendation will be meaningfuland effective which is made in accordancewithlawandnotwhichwillbeviolative of law or which will have effect of frustrating law-Appointmentsare to be made by authority with which such power vests in the mannerprovided by law and not otherwise-Observation made in the Judges case(PLJ 1996 SC 882) cannot be made a basis for violating law or for actingin violation of law.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.
Present to: SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN AND SH. IJAZ NlSAR,
MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN and 11 others
Versus
GOVT. OF N.-W.F.P., through CHIEF SErRETARY. PESHAWAR and 4 others
--S. 7 read with Rule 3 and Schedule 'A' of N.-W F.P. Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1983-Prayer for leave to appeal against dismissed Constitutional petition-Contention that petitioners were appointed as civil judge-cwm-judicial Magistrates, persuant to selection made by a committee comprising, amongst others, four learned Judges of High Court after holding written test and interview, on contract basis for a period of one year which period was later extended for one year more by Government-Learned Chief Justice recommended to Government to regularise appointments as petitioners had two years judicial experience to their credit but this recommendation was not accepted by Government-Petitioners challenge refusal of Government to appoint them on regular basis by filing Constitutional petition before High Court seeking direction in the nature of mandamus to appoint them as Civil Judge-cum-judicial Magistrates-Held : Learned Judges of the High Court, were, right in observing that issuance of direction prayed for would be violative of law namely, section 7 of the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1978 read with Rule 3 and Schedule 'A' of the N.-W.F.P. Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1983 which prescribe that appointments to the post in the Province in BPS-16 to 20 are to be made on advice of Public Service Commission, based ontest and examination conducted by Commission for the purpose, and thatthe posts held by petitioners being in BPS-17 can only be filled up in themanner prescribed in law-Concept of independence of judiciary1 does notmake judiciary above the law--Rather, obedience to law and strictadherence thereto by judiciary will ensure its independence and enhanceits prestige-Moreover, only such recommendation will be meaningfuland effective which is made in accordancewithlawandnotwhichwillbeviolative of law or which will have effect of frustrating law-Appointmentsare to be made by authority with which such power vests in the mannerprovided by law and not otherwise-Observation made in the Judges case(PLJ 1996 SC 882) cannot be made a basis for violating law or for actingin violation of law.
Judgement Result: Petition dismissed.
No comments:
Post a Comment