Pakistan Case Law
1986 SCMR 768 (1)

SHAFIQUL HASSAN SHAH vs PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL Through Its Chairman

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1986 SCMR 768 (1)
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No. 935 of 1985 Case No. 115/199
Date1985-11-12
Judge(s)Nasim Hasan Shah, S. A. Nusrat
ResultPetition dismissed
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by an ex-Kanoongo whose removal from service by the District Collector was upheld in departmental appeal by the Commissioner and subsequently by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns whether the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance warranting interference under the constitutional jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish any substantial question of law of public importance. The key principle laid down is that leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution will not be granted unless the petitioner demonstrates a substantial question of law of public importance.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether leave to appeal can be granted against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal without establishing a substantial question of law of public importance?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with service matters under Article 212 of the Constitution in the absence of a question of public importance?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Article 212, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
service tribunalremoval from serviceleave to appealsubstantial question of lawpublic importance

ORDER

NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The petitioner an ex-Kanoongo, was removed from service by the District Collector vide order, dated 22-7-1985. His appeal to the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan, was rejected on 7-1-1985. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which too was dismissed vide order, dated 1-8-1985. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.

2. We have heard Sh. Munir Ahmad, learned Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner in support of this petition. He has not been able to establish that any substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this case. Hence no ground for grant of leave to appeal under Article 212 of the Constitution exists. The petition is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.