Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to. Appeal No. 761 of 1980, decided on 16^th December,1980.

(On appeal against the order dated 24th March, 1980, passed by the Lahore High Court in I.-C. A. No. 65 of 1979).

--- Arts. 199 & 185(3)-Writ jurisdiction-Atternate adequate re medy-Petitioner appointed as Additional District & Sessions Judge for a period of six months but continuing to function even after expiry of such period-Some time afterwards petitioner informed by Section Officer on behalf of Chief Secretary that his appointment having expired on expiry of period of his appointment he no longer remained in Government service-Appointment having not been extended, letter on behalf of Chief Secretary only conveyed to him a correct position-Even otherwise proper forum for redress of grievance in such case being Punjab Service Tribunal, appeal before such Tribunal being more adequate remedy than furnished by writ petition before High Court, and adequate alternative remedy being available to petitioner, writ petition, held, rightly dismissed by High Court.-[Civil services].

Zafar Pasha Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A, Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Date of hearing : 16th December, 1980.

- Sufi Malik Muhammad Sarfraz was appointed Additional Public Prosecutor at Faisalabad and later as Additional District & Sessions Judge on 25th June, 1977 for a period of six months. He continued to function even after the expiry of this period. The Section Officer, S & GAD then informed him in the middle of April, 1978, on behalf off; the Chief Secretary of the Punjab that his ad hoc appointment had expired in October, 1979 and he was therefore, no more in the Government service. The petitioner felt aggrieved and filed Writ Petition No. 5678/S of 1978 which was dismissed by an order of that Court dated 21st February, 1979. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.

2. The petitioner is not in a position to show that his ad hoc appointment was extended. The letter on behalf of the Chief Secretary, therefore, only conveyed to him the correct position. Even if he had a grievance the proper forum for him to approach was the Punjab Service Tribunal but he instead went to the High Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court in these matters is controlled by Article 199 which specifically lays down that jurisdiction is to be exercised only if there is no alternate remedy. It cannot be denied that an appeal before the Tribunal L'S more adequate remedy than is furnished by a writ petition before the High Court. It was for this that the High Court. dismissed the writ petition and we fully agree with it in the finding. This petition has, therefore, no force and is dismissed.

Petition dismissed,

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.