DR. HAFIZ MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, QUETTA
Section 9 Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Exchange) Rules, 1979, RR 1 (2), 7, 8 and 9 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts 199, 4 and 27 Constitutional Jurisdiction Promote, Applicants Were entitled. Most of the senior doctors who have been serving for decades have been working under the section 9 of the Junior Doctors of the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, officially recognizing the standard of development according to seniority-cum-merit in relation to the election posts. Was provided on It failed to show that the applicants were not senior to the respondents or that they were eligible for appointment to specific positions The record further reflects that the rules have been clearly violated and the various doctors who are senior Article 27 of the Constitution deprived of its legal rights provided that no person, otherwise qualified for appointment to the Service, be discriminated in respect of any such appointment. Whereas Article 4 of the Constitution facilitated equal treatment. The court had to see that when not only the fundamental rights were violated but the structure was abolished, the court should exercise jurisdiction over the objection that the High Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter. It is not enough to observe that the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to enforce the fundamental rights by issuing mandamus and prohibited department writs. In the present case, the law has failed to comply with the rules and regulations. ? Under this, framed; junior doctors were assigned higher positions, while senior doctors were assigned their positions.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2009
