Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Review Petition No. 27‑R of 1984, decided on 25th February, 1986.
(On review of the judgment of the Supreme Court, dated 29‑2‑1984).
‑‑‑O.XXVI, r.l‑‑Review‑‑Petition for leave to appeal‑‑All aspects of contention raised in review petition dealt with in petition for leave to appeal dismissed earlier‑‑What petitioner sought amounted to a rehearing de novo of his entire case on same grounds which was against scope and purpose of review‑‑Petition, held, without merit and dismissed.
Petitioner in person.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 25th February, 1986.
The petitioner seeks review of our judgment, dated 29‑2‑1984 whereby his petition for leave to appeal was disposed of.
His sole contention is that as he was already in service before 29‑4‑1977 and had been validly appointed a civil servant by letter, dated 2‑7‑1977, he did not fall in the category of employees whose case was to be referred to Public Service Commission. For this, he relies on the definition of "employee" in clause (f) and of "Council" in clause (d) of section 2 of Ordinance XIV of 1981.
The submission of the petitioner, who earlier also personally argued his case, finds mention in paras. 14 to 16 of the judgment, and all aspects of his contention are dealt with therein. What the petitioner is now seeking amounts to a rehearing de novo of his entire case on the same grounds. Such is not the scope and purpose of a review. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.
M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer