Find a Lawyer

SYED IMAM SHAH versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.

Section 16 University of the Act (II of 1974), Section 13 (3) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Appointment Appointment Government employees who were initially recruited in BPS5 are senior. Clerks positions were promoted to the assigned course. And then senior scale assistants in BPS 11 were replaced with a new way of developing on the basis of seniority low fitness, the vacancies of the superintendent were vacant, applications were sought and suitable candidates were selected and these The appointment against the posts suggested that the superintendent's vacancies should be filled through the initial recruitment, not that the old recruitment process was abolished by the new selection / appointment procedure and adherence to the terms of the University of University Service A new method was introduced under section 16 of the 1997 Act. The terms of service for the employees of the University notification (BPS-5 to BPS-16) adhering to the eligibility criteria for this position were issued with the approval of the Competent / Appointing Authority. The Vice-Chancellor exercised his powers under section 13 (3) of the University of Peshawar Act, 1974. In the present case no institution of the University was constituted and a new method of appointment and promotion was introduced for legitimate reasons which hardly justified the intervention of the High Court under constitutional jurisdiction where the executive or the executive. The officer took action under one. The law, the High Court, can control proceedings only under a proper order when it is said that the officer is required by law to exercise such jurisdiction online advocate from FR Peshawar lawyer