Summary: Service matters (Quo warranto )

Summary: the petitioner has prayed for issuance of the writ of quo warranto against respondents 4 to 11, inter-alia, on the ground that they are not fit, eligible and qualified to hold the office of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, and Senior Registrar in Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical College Lyari, Karachi, (SMBBMC) and their future appointments in SMBBMC on contract are hit by Article 199 (1) (b) (ii) of the Constitution, 1973.

Summary: Quo warranto --maintainability of this petition on the ground that private respondents were appointed in the year 2013 in Lyari Development Authority.alleged cause of action accrued to the petitioner in the year 2013 when the aforesaid appointments were made by the Lyari Development Authority and now he has approached this Court on 09.12.2020 after a delay of approximately 07 years from the date of the alleged cause of action. Thus his case falls within the ambit of the doctrine of laches.

Summary: The case of the petitioner precisely is that though pursuant to the internal vacancy circular, he had applied for the post of Script Producer (Pay Group V) under the re-designated policy, however, respondent No.3, despite not having eligibility for the post, on the basis of nepotism and favoritism was appointed Script Producer vide order dated 11.03.2008, thus, the petitioner has been discriminated upon and resultantly impugned the said order in the present proceedings.Article 199 of the constitution of Pakistan, Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. Service Rules 1978 were discussed in the case.It was observed that the petitioner had not approached the court for violation of any service rules but the entire focus was on re-designation policy and re-designation of respondent No.3 from the post of light-man to script writer who claims to be M.A. LLB at the same time there is no dispute that the petitioner applied for re-designation in terms of re-designation policy but after the cutoff date hence, his application was not considered by the competent authority. It was also held that case was also not purely a writ of quo warranto but substantial relief was claimed by the petitioner for his own. Petition dismissed with no order as to cost.