Arts 25 and 199 Constitution Petition Civil Service Discrimination Contract Appointment The re-appointment of the service officer was assigned to a cell working in the federal government on a contract basis, and the complaint was that such others were kept 27 employees were regularized, while their job was terminated. Authorities said there was a specific condition in the appointment letter that the department had to terminate applicants' services without giving any reason. Due to non-assignment of reasons, non-communication and non-existence it was totally different things. The cause or cause was not guaranteed and it was a process of corruption when the cell had obtained permanent status and a decision in this regard was taken before the termination order was passed against the applicant, the appointment of the applicant. If the provisional rights associated with the permanent rights were consolidated, then the express letter in the appointment, citing the appointment of a post from the government to the post was distinguished, but that did not necessarily mean that the applicant, who was not a civil servant, was a public servant. The post was not held, the public element was attached to the appointment and a reasonable basis for conducting a rigorous and clean process. In support of. In the case of employees contracting a decision against the applicant or where the rules or instructions adopted by the authorities were referred to legal rules or laws, the master's consent was under the government's authority and the employee was constitutional in his use of the constitution. Legal protection will be entitled to the High Court. Jurisdiction, put aside the order to terminate applicants' service because it was illegal
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012
