Find a Lawyer

SAJID SOHAIL versus SYNDICATE OF QUAID-I-AZAM UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD

Sections 8, 13, 22, 33, 34 and 37 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional application The removal applicant was appointed Registrar of the University on a regular basis, but his services were exercised by the Vice-Chancellor. Finished doing. Under Section 13 (3) of the Statutory Appointment Letter regarding the legality of the Quit Azam University Act, 1973, the applicant's services were under scrutiny for a period of two years and it has not been confirmed yet. This is to evaluate its performance. The applicant's services were not found satisfactory, his services were terminated Petitioner was run under the terms and conditions in the appointment letter The applicant was appointed on probation for 2 years and his services before the appointment letter. I was subject to the above terms and conditions. Upon completion of the inquiry period, his services were terminated in accordance with Article B of this letter of appointment on the basis of which his work was not satisfactory to the applicant by the competent authority whose conditions specified in the appointment letter. Depending on the rules, the applicant was not required to issue a show cause notice or provide a hearing, otherwise the applicant was undergoing treatment under section 34. Under the rules of the University, only employees appointed on a regular basis were required to issue notices in the form of filing a review against the order passed by the authorities under the Quaid-e-Azam University Act, 1973, when the applicant was appointed. ? Inquiries whose services were subject to the terms and conditions were found to be unsatisfactory by the applicant in his appointment letter, female advocates from Wana lawyer