Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1982 PLC (C. S.) 751

ARIF NAWAZ BUTT vs D.I-G. POLICE (TRAFFIC) AND OTHERS

Citation1982 PLC (C. S.) 751
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No, 9506 of 1980
Date1980-09-12
Judge(s)Abaid Ullah Khan
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' Arif Nawaz Butt, the petitioner, was a candidate for the post of Motor Vehicle Examiner. The Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Traffic, Punjab, Lahore respondent 1, was to select and appoint an incumbent to the post. However, respondent t did not select the petitioner for the job he selected and appointed respondents 2 to 12 as Motor Vehicle Examiners vide his order dated the 17th August, 1980. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has brought this petition Under Article 199 of the Constitution for issuance of writs of certiorari and mandamus for declaring the impugned order of respondent I to be without lawful authority and directing respondent I to act in ,conformity with law in making selection and appointment of Motor Vehicle Examiners.

2. The petitioner has made vague allegations that some of the respondent's appointees do not possess the necessary technical and physical qualifications. He has not specifically pin-pointed any of the respondent dents who lacks requisite qualifications nor has he mentioned the qualifications which are wanting in any of them. He has made general allegations that respondent 1 has made appointments in contravention of the West Pakistan Transport Department Subordinate Posts Recruitment Rules, 1962, having bearing on the subject.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reading from pages 401-402 of Monir's Commentary of the 1962 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, contended that a writ of mandamus in the circumstances' could be issued against respondent 1. However, the petitioner had no absolute legal right to demand that he must be appointed to the post. Even if he possessed the necessary qualifications he might not have been accepted for appointment by respondent 1. It is not for this Court in writ jurisdiction to enter upon an inquiry to ascertain as to which of the appointees- respondents suffers from lack of requisite qualifications if any. Respondent 1 had discretion in making selection for the post and his discretion could not be substituted by the order of this Court.

In these circumstances the petition is without any force and is dismissed ins limine.

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