Summary: (a) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973-------R. 12-A---Alteration in date of birth---Date of birth once recorded at the time of joining ofgovernment service shall be final and thereafter no alteration in the same was permissible---Inthe present case, petitioner instead of assailing order determining his date of birth raised thequestion at the verge of his retirement after 26 years of joining of his service---Constitutionalpetition was dismissed.(b) Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Date of Birth) Rules, 1994-------R. 6(c)---Work charge employee converted as regular employee---Scope---Rule 6(c) ofPakistan WAPDA Employees (Date of Birth) Rules, 1994 provided for alteration of date of birthrelated to clerical error and applicable to those employees who were employed initially as workcharge and were later converted to regular employees of WAPDA on or after July, 1994.(c) Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Date of Birth) Rules, 1994-------R. 3---Documents required for confirmation of date of birth---Claim for alteration of date ofbirth---Documents for confirmation of date of birth, the year of birth or the age of employees ofWAPDA were matriculation certificate, school leaving certificate or municipal birth certificate---In the present case, petitioner had claimed alteration of date of birth on the basis of matriculationcertificate, CNIC and local certificate---Rule 3 of Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Date of Birth)Rules, 1994 was inapplicable to the present case as petitioner was appointed prior to 1994---Petitioner sought declaration for rectification/correction of his date of birth after 26 years ofjoining service which matter had already been decided by competent committee of departmentwhich had attained finality---Constitutional petition also suffered from laches and was dismissedaccordingly.Ahmed Khan Dehpal v. Government of Balochistan and others 2013 SCMR 759 andProfessor Dr. Muhammad Aslam Baloch v. Government of Balochistan through Secretary,Health Department and others 2014 SCMR 1723 rel

Summary: Interpreting the provision of Section 35 (1) (c) of the Sindh Local Government Act 2013, the Court holds that no person can seek his election on a reserved seat of a Council unless he is enrolled as a voter in the electoral rolls of any of the Wards that fall within the limits of such Council----The petitioner, a candidate in the Local Government elections for a reserved seat in District Council, Naushero Feroz, had his nomination papers rejected because he was an enrolled voter in the urban area, not the rural area where the council was located. Despite appeals, including one to the High Court of Sindh, the decision stood. The petitioner argued that the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, does not restrict candidates to be enrolled in rural areas for reserved seats. However, the court clarified that Section 35(1)(c) of the Act mandates candidates to be enrolled voters in the electoral rolls of the council or ward. Section 15 of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, outlining the constitution of various councils in urban and rural areas.The court reasoned that while direct election candidates must be from the specific ward, candidates for reserved seats must be enrolled voters within the council's local limits. As the District Council's constituency was rural, candidates must be enrolled voters in rural wards. Thus, the petitioner, being an urban area voter, was ineligible. The petition was dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: The review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court does not allow re-hearing of a decided case more so when the Court has given conscious and deliberate decision on the point of law as well as of fact. The grounds not urged or raised at the time of hearing of constitution petition cannot be allowed to be raised in the review proceeding. The Court is not bound to give indefinite hearing to the counsel appearing for a party before it.----- The petitioners, Engineers Study Forum (Regd) and another, sought review only for C.P.No.104/2011. During the hearing on 18.07.2016, the Court reserved judgment after hearing the arguments of the Senior ASC for the review petitioners. Subsequently, the Senior ASC filed written submissions and requested further opportunity for hearing through CMA No.5135/2016. The Court dismissed CMA No.5135/2016, emphasizing that the counsel had been given adequate opportunity for hearing, including the filing of written submissions. It clarified that the Court is not obliged to provide indefinite hearing, and it must regulate proceedings efficiently. Regarding the main review petition, the Senior ASC argued that the constitution petition filed by the petitioners aimed to enforce fundamental rights under Articles 9 and 157 of the Constitution of Pakistan. However, the Court noted that its power to review judgments is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court observed that the arguments presented by the Senior ASC did not constitute grounds for review as they had been considered during the original judgment. It stressed that review jurisdiction does not allow re-hearing of decided cases or the introduction of new arguments. The petitioners, Engineers Study Forum (Regd) and another, sought review only for C.P.No.104/2011. During the hearing on 18.07.2016, the Court reserved judgment after hearing the arguments of the Senior ASC for the review petitioners. Subsequently, the Senior ASC filed written submissions and requested further opportunity for hearing through CMA No.5135/2016. The Court dismissed CMA No.5135/2016, emphasizing that the counsel had been given adequate opportunity for hearing, including the filing of written submissions. It clarified that the Court is not obliged to provide indefinite hearing, and it must regulate proceedings efficiently. Regarding the main review petition, the Senior ASC argued that the constitution petition filed by the petitioners aimed to enforce fundamental rights under Articles 9 and 157 of the Constitution of Pakistan. However, the Court noted that its power to review judgments is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court observed that the arguments presented by the Senior ASC did not constitute grounds for review as they had been considered during the original judgment. It stressed that review jurisdiction does not allow re-hearing of decided cases or the introduction of new arguments. Citing relevant precedents, the Court concluded that the review petition was not maintainable and dismissed it. In summary, the Court upheld its original judgment and rejected the review petition due to the absence of grounds justifying review and the attempt to re-litigate issues already addressed in the initial judgment. Citing relevant precedents, the Court concluded that the review petition was not maintainable and dismissed it. The Court upheld its original judgment and rejected the review petition due to the absence of grounds justifying review and the attempt to re-litigate issues already addressed in the initial judgment.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Ss. 302, 324,148,149 PPC & 7 ATA.Considerable long unexplained delay in lodging FIR... absence of specific role...case of further inquiry.