Pakistan Case Law
1994 SCMR 1806

BASHIR AHMED MALIK vs GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, N..W.F.P. and 4 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1994 SCMR 1806
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 229/P of 1993 W.P. No, 332 of 1993
Date1993-11-27
Judge(s)Muhammad Rafiq Tarrar and Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui
Authored byMuhammad Rafiq Tarar
ResultLeave granted
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 Bashir Ahmed Malik against the Government of N.W.F.P. and others. The core legal question is whether the impugned judgment failed to consider the precedent set in Muhammad Masihuzzaman's case and ignored Rule 12 of the North-West Frontier Province Provincial Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment) Rules, 1974. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions raised by the petitioner. The key principle established is that prior binding precedents of the apex court and relevant statutory service rules must be duly considered and applied in service matters.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the failure to keep in view a binding judgment of the Supreme Court vitiates an impugned judgment?
  • Were the North-West Frontier Province ProvincialAssembly Secretariat (Recruitment) Rules, 1974 ignored in the passing of the impugned judgment?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Rule 12, North-West Frontier Province Provincial Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment) Rules, 1974
leave to appealservice mattersrecruitment rulesprecedentprovincial assembly secretariat

ORDER

1. MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.---Leave to appeal is granted to examine the contention raised by the petitioner that the decision of this Court in Muhammad Masihuzzaman's case (PLD 1992 Supreme Court 825) was not kept in view while passing the impugned judgment and Rule 12 of the North- West Frontier Province Provincial Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment) Rules, 1974 was also ignored.

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