2014 S C M R 1147

2014 S C M R 1147

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani, C.J., Nasir-ul-Mulk, Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Asif Saeed Khan Khosa and Ejaz Afzal Khan, JJ

MUHAMMAD ASLAM AWAN, ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT---Petitioner

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others---Respondents

Constitutional Petition No.9 of 2014, decided on 6th May, 2014.

            (Constitution Petition under Article 184 of the Constitution regarding seniority of the Judges of Lahore High Court, Lahore)

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 193, 197 & 184(3)---Constitutional petition under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution regarding inter se seniority of the Judges of the (Lahore) High Court---Inter se seniority of Judges of the High Court---Principles---Inter se seniority of Judges of a High Court shall reckon from the order and date of their appointment as Additional Judges of that Court---Inter se seniority of Additional Judges of a High Court appointed vide the same order and date shall reckon from their seniority in age---If appointment of two or more service candidates was simultaneously made with that of the candidates from the Bar, the Judges from service shall retain their existing seniority in the department regardless of their age, though that would be the determining factor in respect of their seniority vis-a-vis the candidates from the Bar---Supreme Court observed that such principle had consistently been followed without exception ever-since the establishment of the High Courts in the country and was even otherwise in accord with the equitable dispensation of justice---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

            Zaka ur Rehman, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

            Salman Aslam Butt, Attorney-General, Kh. Saeed uz Zafar, Additional Attorney-General, Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Deputy Attorney-General and Waqar Rana, Advocate Supreme Court, Consultant to Attorney-General on Court Notice.

            Date of hearing: 6th May, 2014.

ORDER

            TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, C.J.---For reasons to be recorded to be recorded later in the detailed judgment, we hold and declare as under:--

(i)         that the inter se seniority of Judges of a High Court shall reekon from the order and date of their appointment as Additional Judges of that Court.

(ii)        that the inter se seniority of Additional Judges of a High Court appointed vide the same order and date shall reekon from their seniority in age. If appointment of two or more service candidates is simultaneously made with that of the candidates from the Bar, the service Judges shall retain their existing seniority in the department regardless of their age, though that would be the determining factor in respect of their seniority vis-a-vis the candidates from the Bar. This principle has consistently been followed without exception ever-since the establishment of the High Courts in Pakistan and is even otherwise in accord with the equitable dispensation of justice.

2.         With the above observations and declaration, this petition is dismissed.

MWA/M-21/SC                                                                                  Petition dismissed.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358

P L D 2016 Supreme Court 358 Present: Mian Saqib Nisar, Iqbal Hameedur Rehman and Tariq Parvez, JJ Sahabzadi MAHARUNISA and another---Appellants/Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM SUGHRAN and another---Respondents Civil Appeals Nos. 1176 and 1177 of 2015, and Civil Petition No.1428-L of 2015.           (Against the order dated 11-6-2015 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench passed in C.M. Nos. 385, 388/2009 and 2051 of 2015) (a) Words and phrases --- ----"Merge" and "merger"---Definitions.             Chambers English Dictionary 7th Edn.; Oxford English Dictionary (1933); Corpus Juris Secoundum (1936) and The Constitution of India by Prof. S.R.Bhansali ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S.12(2)---Application under S.12(2), C.P.C, filing of---Forum---"Court which passed the final judgment, decree or order"---Principles---For all legal purposes, it was the final decree/order of the last Court in ...
Read more

P L D 2009 Lahore 362

P L D 2009 Lahore 362 Before Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, Tariq Shamim and M.A. Zafar, JJ GHULAM MURTAZA and another---Appellants Versus THE STATE---Respondent Criminal Appeal No.284-J of 2008, decided on 27th March, 2009. (a) Administration of justice--- ----Principles---Quintessence of the Civilization's evolution and growth in the legal field is a progression from dispensation of justice according to the principle of "justice, equity and good conscience" to "justice according to law"---Rationale or raison d'etre for this momentum, quite easy to discern and comprehend, is that justice ought not to be administered according to whims, caprice or subjective standards of an individual judge but it should be dispensed according to some codified or stipulated standards so as to render the outcome consistent and reasonably predictable---Predictability of judicial response to an action or inaction of a person is important because, by and large, people livi...
Read more

2010 SCMR 1181, Supreme Court Allowed Superdari

2010 SCMR 1181 [Supreme Court of Pakistan] Present: Nasir-ul-Mulk, Raja Fayyaz Ahmad and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ ALLAH DITTA----Petitioner Versus THE STATE----Respondent Criminal Petition No.461 of 2009, decided on 12th February, 2010. (On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court Lahore dated 3-6-2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.674 of 2009). (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)--- ----S. 74, Proviso---`Any private individual'---Meaning and scope ---Phrase "any private individual" is to be read ejusdem generis with the preceding specific words, "accused, or his associate or relative' ---By application of the rule the "private individual" mentioned in the proviso refers to such an `individual who has some nexus with the offender or the offence-I-Innocent owner of the vehicle used in the commission of the crime having no nexus whatsoever, either with the accused or the crime, would not fall within the scope of the ph...
Read more