Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Consultation of law Department before introducing Law or Rule, mandatory.

Summary: Civil service-------Appointment against post of Assistant Superintendent Jail---Re-measurement of height ofcandidate---Concealment of facts---Effect---Appointment letter was issued in favour of petitionersubject to fitness report---Department refused to take joining of petitioner and petitioner filedconstitutional petition against such refusal which was disposed of with the direction to thedepartment to decide the application of petitioner---Petitioner was summoned for remeasurement of his height along with record but he filed yet another constitutional petitionwhich was dismissed---Validity---Petitioner had concealed facts which could be taken intoconsideration---Previous wrong decisions on the basis of said concealment of facts could becurable at belated stage---Petitioner had remained unable to prove his case---Person could nothave vested right for a post against which he did not fulfill the requirement/ criteria---Noillegality had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the Single Judge of High Court---Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Summary: he main arguments put forward by the petitioners were:The Headmistress had no authority to surrender or relieve them.The District Coordination Officer (D.C.O.) did not have a role in these matters.The orders were issued without serving the petitioners with a Show Cause Notice or providing them with an opportunity for a personal hearing.Transfer or surrender of teachers could only be done after an inquiry under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline, and Accountability Act, 2006.The orders were issued during a ban on transfers of teaching staff.The government argued that the transfer and posting of teachers are part of their terms and conditions of service, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. They invoked Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan to argue that the court should not entertain matters related to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants.The court held that the matter in dispute, which included the transfer and posting of the petitioners, was indeed part of their terms and conditions of service. Therefore, it fell under the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, and the court could not entertain the case. Even allegations of malice or illegality did not give the court jurisdiction to interfere. The court emphasized that the Service Tribunal was the appropriate forum for addressing such issues. The court referred to various precedents and rulings in support of this conclusion.In summary, the judgment dismisses the petition and connected petitions, as it was found that the court lacked jurisdiction to address the matter related to the terms and conditions of service, including the transfer and posting of civil servants, due to the provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan.

Summary: The petitioner contested the legality of an order, rejecting their application for land acquisition for a housing scheme. The petitioner had sought the acquisition of land, but the government withdrew the initial notification in 2009. The court ruled that the petitioner's business in real estate did not qualify as a public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act, emphasizing that land acquisition is permissible only for public purposes. The judgment highlighted that the government has the authority to withdraw from land acquisition before taking possession and noted the absence of satisfaction by the provincial government for the acquisition. The court also criticized the petitioner for not including necessary parties in the petition. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed for lacking merit.