Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NAZIR SHAHIDI VS Respondent: COMMISSIONERHonorable Justice ABDUS SATTAR
1969 S C M
1969 S C M. R 130
Present: Fazle‑Akbar, C. J. and Abdus Sattar, J
NAZIR SHAHIDI‑Petitioner
versus
THE COMMISSIONER, MULTAN AND 10 OTHERS Respondents
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 258 of 1968, decided on 8th November 1968.
(On appeal froze the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 9th February 1968, in Writ Petition No. 1499 of 1967).
Constitution of Pakistan (1962)-----
--Art. 98‑Government servant Selection post‑Person has no vested right to appointment and as such not "aggrieved" person within meaning of Art. 98.
S. Rafiq Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Siddiq & Co., Attorneys for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 8th November 1968.
JUDGMENT
FAZLE‑AKBAR, C. J.‑The petitioner is an Assistant Consolida tion Officer. His name was included by the Commissioner in the list of Kanungos who were considered fit to officiate as Naib Tehsildars. Later when the Commissioner selected 15 persons as Naib‑Tehsildars from among the subordinate service, his claim was ignored. He, therefore, moved a writ in the High Court, challenging the order of the Commissioner. The Commis sioner, in his report to the High Court, stated that he selected the officers with due regard to merit and seniority and that due to adverse confidential reports the petitioner was not selected for the post of Naib‑Tehsildar. As the post of Naib‑Tehsildar was a selection post, the petitioner had no vested right to be appointed as such. The High Court, therefore, held that the decision of the Commissioner in this matter could not be questioned in Court. As in the opinion of the High Court the petitioner could not be considered an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Article 98 of the Constitution, the petition was dismissed in limine. 'The petitioner, therefore, seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.
The learned counsel for the petitioner found it difficult to challenge the finding of the High Court that as the petitioner had no vested right to be appointed as Naib‑Tehsildar, he had no locus standi to file the writ petition. It will, therefore, suffice to say that the High Court was fully justified in dismissing the mis conceived petition.
This petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Leave refused.