Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos.743 and 850 of 1984, decided on 12th August, 1984.
(Against the judgments and orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 9-5-1984 in Writ Petition No. 1873 of 1984 and dated 21-4-1984 in I. C . A . No. 2 of 1984) .
--Art. 185(3)--Leave to appeal--Petitioner, initially a practising lawyer, was subsequently recruited as a Civil Judge--Petitioner while posted a; Civil Judge applied for competing for posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge against reserved vacancies for practising lawyers --Petition was not allowed to compete--Leave to appeal--Held, on the date petitioner applied for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge, he was not eligible to do so--Vacancies against which recruitment was sought were reserved for practising lawyers which petitioner was not- Petitioner could not, therefore, while holding post of Civil Judge see recruitment against vacancies reserved for practising lawyers--Leave t appeal refused.
---Art. 199---Ex officio function of holder of a public office viz. Judge of High Court--Writ of quo warranto could not be issued to such an ex officio functioning of a rightful holder of a public officio Petitioner in person.
Tanvir Ahmad, Assistant Advocate-General and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 12th August, 1984.
The petitioner by two separate petitions seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 21-4-1984 and 9-5-1984 whereby two constitutional petitions filed by him failed.
The petitioner was initially a practising lawyer. He was subse quently recruited as a Civil Judge. While posted in that capacity he applied for competing for the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge against the reserved- vacancies for practising lawyers. He was not allowed to do so. He instituted a constitutional petition contending that he was qualified and eligible to compete and should not have been prevented from doing so. This constitutional petition was dismissed on 21-11-1983 and the intra-Court appeal also failed on 21-4-1984.
He filed another constitutional petition for a writ of quo warrants challenging authority of the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court to constitute a selection committee comprising Judges of that Court for selecting the practising lawyers for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judges. This petition was held to be misconceived and dismissed.
The petitioner is present in person and has been heard.
Apart from the facts noted in the judgments under appeal, it is clear to us that on the date the petitioner applied for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge, he was not eligible to do so. The vacancies against which recruitment was sought were reserved for practising lawyers, which the petitioner was not. He could not, therefore, while holding the post of Civil Judge seek recruitment against the vacancies reserved for practising lawyers.
As for the legality of the constitution of the Selection Board and its functioning, it has to be noted that there is no public office of members of Selection Committee as such. It is a function of the holder of a public office viz. the Judge of the High Court. For such an ex officio functioning of a rightful holder of a public office, quo warranto cannot issue. The petitioner has no locos standi otherwise to interfere in the selection, he being not eligible.
No merit in either of the petitions. Leave to appeal is refused in both.
M . Z . M Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer