Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AWAIS SHAHID VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Mian Burhanuddin Khan, Aslam Riaz Hussain, Shafi-ur-Rehman Title: MUHAMMAD AWAIS SHAHID vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB And Other Case No.:Civil Petitions for Special Leave to Appeals Nos.743 and 850 of 1984 Writ
Petition No. 1873 of 1984 I. C . A . No. 2 of 1984 Date of Judgment:1984-08-11 Reported As: 1985 SCMR 175 Result: Petition dismissed Judgment ORDER SHAFIUR REHMAN, J.-- The petitioner by to separate petitions seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 21-4-1984 and 9-5-1984 whereby to constitutional petitions filed by him failed. The petitioner was initially a practising lawyer. He was subse--quently recruited as a Civil Judge. While posted in that capacity he applied for competing for the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge against the reserved- vacancies for practising lawyers. He was not allowed to do so. He instituted a constitutional petition contending that he was qualified and eligible to compete and should not have been prevented from doing so. This constitutional petition was dismissed on 21-11-1983 and the intra-Court appeal also failed on 21-4-1984. He filed another constitutional petition for a writ of quo warrants challenging authority of the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court to constitute a selection committee comprising Judges of that Court for selecting the practising lawyers for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judges. This petition was held to be misconceived and dismissed. The petitioner is present in person and has been heard. Apart from the facts noted in the judgments under appeal, it is clear to us that on the date the petitioner applied for appointment as Additional District and Sessions Judge, he was not eligible to do so. The vacancies against which recruitment was sought were reserved for practising lawyers, which the petitioner was not. He could not, therefore, while holding the post of Civil Judge seek recruitment against the vacancies reserved for practising lawyers.
---
## Page 2
As for the legality of the constitution of the Selection Board and its functioning, it has to be noted that there is no public office of members of Selection Committee as such. It is a function of the holder of a public office viz. The Judge of the High Court. For such an ex officio functioning of a rightful holder of a public office, quo warranto cannot issue. The petitioner has no locos standi otherwise to interfere in the selection, he being not eligible. No merit in either of the petitions. Leave to appeal is refused in both.