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 employees The respondent was a contractual employee of the company and upon expiry, in the first period of litigation His contract was not extended, he prayed that he should be absorbed / appointed but his request was rejected by the High Court as well as the Supreme Court, after which, the applicants again on this basis. Filed constitutional requests that they do not have the opportunity to compete for the appointment nor were they advertised for the recruitment of vacancies. Oh. The High Court Plan, which was also raised by the applicants, was dismissed, after having been trained for two years, he was employed regularly and was entitled to be absorbed. In the constitutional petition, applicants were different from the judicial litigation before the Supreme Court and applicants of the Supreme Court for their appointment to complain of their appointment when their training expired. It could not be allowed to hide another 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, they denied such relief best advocate from Daharki lawyer