MAUZAM HANIF versus SETTLEMENT OFFICER/COLLECTOR AND ANOTHER
Under Article 199 of the Constitution, Article 3 of Pakistan (1973), Arts 185 (3) and the 1993 Constitutional Jurisdiction were dismissed from employment due to misappropriation of domicile certificates from two districts because of He had two positions applying for the Domicile Certificate and the Patwari post, the service tribunal from both districts rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the applicant had not attained the status of a civil servant, so he had jurisdiction. Was not approved by the High Court. In exercising the constitutional jurisdiction, the accuracy word domicile must be structured in accordance with the purpose and purpose of the appointment policy. Policymakers allocated seats in each specific district with the condition that a person with a district domicile was eligible to apply. The question regarding the domicile was a reference to the appointment of the post through which the system was governed by an individual. Such a system was dominant in the province. The applicant did not challenge the policy challenges of the authorities. The High Court was, therefore, justified by the applicant's instability based on his own conduct. The applicant fails to state that the action of the authorities is a breach of their duties, rules and policy, as maintaining the constitutional petition before the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction is a prerequisite for anyone Cannot be used. The person who came to court for gross negligence due to his misconduct had to intervene in the judgment passed by the High Court.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
