Find a Lawyer

SYED MUHAMMAD ARIF versus UNIVERSITY OF BALOCHISTAN

Arts 185 (3), 25 and 1991 Recommendation for the selection board applicants for the positions of professors and associate professors affiliated with the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court The selection board recommended the applicants' names, but the syndicate Did not approve the recommendations on the request that the applicants were. PhD Petitioners endorsed the Syndicate Act before the High Court under the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, but the High Court rejected the petition, for the purpose of upholding the constitutional petition, it was the responsibility and responsibility of the applicants to do so. Explain that respondents' behavior is infringing. Due to the rules that the applicants failed to identify, the High Court was justified in dismissing the constitutional petition, failing to bring its case within the parameters set out in Article 25 of the Constitution. The Syndicate's recommendations were not binding on the Supreme Court. The only jurisdiction to interpret the law, since the constitution was based on a tracheotomy, the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to play the role of policy maker in the wrap of justification that the applicant was in any form of weakness or illegitimacy. Had failed to identify and the High Court's decision was not in accordance with the law which was followed. The appeal was denied by the Supreme Court female advocates from Rashidabad lawyer