C.M. No.2 of 2004 MUHAMMAD KHALID ALVI, J.---Through this application petitioner wants that operation of the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 1-4-2004, consequent Notification dated 8-4-2004 and as a result thereof oath taken by the respondent on 10-4-2004 be suspended.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to case reported in 2002 SCM R 1551, contends that in an identical case when the writ petition was admitted by this Court and refused to suspend the impugned Notification their Lordships had suspended the operation of the Notification during pendency of the writ petition before this Court.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the distinguishing feature in the instant case and that of reported case is that in the said case by that time only Notification had been issued and Oath had not been administered to the Candidate who was declared to be successful by the learned Tribunal.
4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers.
5. In para.4 of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is categorically noted by their Lordships that the respondent had not taken oath of the office. In the instant case, it is admitted fact that respondent had taken oath on 10-4-2004. Therefore, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the instant case. Had the respondents not taken oath, considering good prima facie case of the petitioner I would have certainly suspended the operation of the impugned Notification but since the respondents have already taken oath and are performing their duties. Therefore, I do not deem it appropriate to suspend the Notification. In these circumstances, this application is dismissed.