Find a Lawyer

MIAN AURANGZEB versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIO

Article 212 (3) The applicant believed that he was appointed on an ad hoc basis in April 1989, after which the government requested the Federal Public Service Commission to fill in the vacancy. It is important to consider whether the applicant was present and whether the applicant, in the given circumstances, should have been counted to his credit when he served in the department for more than twelve years, the appeal was granted. Went, however, to consider the above question

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• GHULAM NABI v. State 2011 SCMR 974
• MUHAMMAD ISHAQUE v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2011 PLC(CS) 977
• CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE (now F.B.R.) v. RECKITT BENCKISER PAKISTAN LTD. 2011 SCMR 977
• THE STATE through Collector of Customs v. BASHIR KHAN 2011 SCMR 982
• GUL BADSHAH v. State 2011 SCMR 984
• Mst. ZULAIKHAN BIBI v. Mst. ROSHAN JAN 2011 SCMR 986
• LIAQAT ALI v. GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Secretary Health, Peshawar 2011 PLC(CS) 990
• GHULAM RASOOL v. SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 2011 SCMR 994

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

how to become a advocate from Harnai lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes