MUHAMMAD SIRAJ Versus PAKISTAN
This matter arises from a review petition filed against the previous judgment of the Supreme Court dated 26th March, 1978, which had dismissed the petitioner's leave petition challenging his removal from service. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's removal by the Director, Malaria Institute of Pakistan, Dacca, was illegal due to an alleged unlawful sub-delegation of powers originating from the President of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the review petition is not maintainable as it merely attempts to re-argue the case on points already considered and rejected, without pointing out any error patent on the face of the record. The court laid down the principle that a review petition cannot be used to re-litigate issues previously examined and decided, absent an error apparent on the face of the record.
- Can a review petition be entertained to re-argue a case on points already urged and rejected?
- What constitutes a valid ground for the review of a judgment of the Supreme Court?
ORDER
1. G. SAFDAR SHAH, J .‑This petition seeks the review of the judgment of this Court, dated 26th March, 1978, by which the leave Petition of the petitioner herein was dismissed.
2. In the said leave petition, the main ground upon which the petitioner had challenged the order of his removal from service by order dated 21st May, 1969, passed by Director, Malaria Institute of Pakistan, Dacca, (respondent No. 4 in this petition) was that he was not his appointing authority and consequently he could neither initiate any disciplinary proceedings against him nor remove him from service. This contention was examined m depth and was rejected.
3. The contention now urged by the petitioner is more or less to the same effect. In that he seeks the review of the judgment of this Court on the ground that the President of Pakistan had delegated his power, as appointing and removing authority in respect of Class‑III Civil Servants to which category he belonged to the Director‑General, Health, Pakistan, and consequently the latter could not delegate the said power to respondent No. 4. It would thus be seen that the petitioner seeks to re‑argue the case on the same very point which had been urged by him and rejected by this Court vide its judgment under review, but the same is impermissible. It is not a case in which the petitioner has pointed out any error patent on the face of the record, therefore, he cannot be permitted to argue the case all over again.
4. This petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
5. Petition dismissed.