Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ASHFAQ versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, M/O PETROLEUM AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ISLAMABAD

Article 4 (185 ()) Appeal of the Supreme Court Jurisdiction Appointment Two years to hide the training facts of such employee The respondent was a contractual employee of the company and upon expiration, in the first period of litigation His contract was not extended, he prayed that he should be absorbed / appointed, but his prayer was denied. On the basis of the constitutional petitions filed they were not given the opportunity to compete for the appointment nor were they advertised for the position. Recruitment, which was also rejected by the High Court Players, is that after two years of training, he was employed regularly and was entitled to be absorbed. In the constitutional petitions, what was different from the case of the High Court Applicants was that the applicants of the High Court and the Supreme Court, following their treatment, complained of their appointment to complain of their appointment on the expiry of their training. Earlier, it could not be allowed by law to hide any other excuse and come back to the Supreme Court with the same excuse. In order to suppress the preliminary litigation between the parties, the applicants had sought training for two years without any guarantee of any response or contract with the respondent company for their recruitment or appointment. Applicants could not be enraged at the request that they be absorbed and this fact should be considered. Earlier, he had been denied such relief. By the High Court best advocate from Panjan Kisan lawyer