Find a Lawyer

MEHAR KHAN MEO versus HIGH COURT OF SINDH

The authority to inform the recording of the annual secret report was not prohibited from recording negative remarks if the former officer did not record the annual secret report applicant, as recorded by the Additional District Judge Service Tribunal. He dismissed his appeal against negative remarks and sought leave of appeal against the decision. The petitioner's position in the Chief Justice's High Court was that the Chief Justice, who recorded negative comments, was not acting as Chief Justice when he recorded negative remarks against him as the dispute was overturned. The fact is that if the annual intelligence reports were not recorded. Former Chief Justice, successor Chief Justice was not prohibited from recording remarks to update the record of an officer in the term of employment because the applicants were officially told that the Chief Justice based on his observations. Formed an opinion. The basis for a thorough investigation of the various disasters was rigorous and session judges, under which the applicant acted. And the opinions made by the Chief Justice from his colleagues also came out on various grounds, as the credentials of the Judicial Officer, were never good or secret, and he traveled very fast, that the Chief Justice's jurisdiction. Living in, the service tribunal found no such error and maintained that no specific question of the law of public importance was included in this request and there was no basis for interference with the process of jurisdiction by the service tribunal. Was created, it was neither irrational nor unfair, nor justice and equality power of attorney advocate Diamer lawyer