Find a Lawyer

DR. HABIB-UR-REHMAN versus QUAID-I-AZAM UNIVERSITY

Article 199 Constitutional application Stoepel, the request for a change in the principle of application was that it remove the verbal voice as the authorities changed the examination procedure. Only the procedure regarding modification test was modified / revised and the applicant also appeared under the revised rules without any protest. No relevant rights of the applicants were violated at the relevant time when litigation was initiated only when the applicant had not arranged for an oral voice, therefore, his conduct appealed against his No one created can be allowed to take various positions which resulted in the High Court refusing to intervene. The applicant's requests were dismissed in the circumstances

Related judgments — Islamabad, 2012

• ABDUL KHALID v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAILWAYS CARRIAGE FACTORY, ISLAMABAD 2012 PLC(CS) 499
• ASGHAR ALI v. MANSOOR MUZAFFAR ALI 2012 PLC(CS) 502
• CHAIRMAN STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN v. M. SALEEM AKHTAR 2012 PLC(CS) 513
• IZHAR-UL-HAQ v. S.M.E. BANK LIMITED 2012 PLC(CS) 517
• AMEEN SAQIB v. State 2012 PCrLJ 577
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN v. State 2012 PCrLJ 603
• OMV MAURICE ENERGY LIMITED v. OCEAN PAKISTAN LIMITED 2012 CLD 619
• PAKISTAN MEDICAL COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY v. AZRA LATIF 2012 CLC 662

All Islamabad judgments of 2012 →

immigration advocates phone number from Chowk Munda lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes