Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: TANVEER AKHTAR VS Respondent: SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHOREHonorable Justice Karamat Nazir Bhandari
2002 P L C (C
2002 P L C (C.S.) 91
[Lahore High Court]
Before Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J
TANVEER AKHTAR
versus
SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 4 others
Writ Petition No.4443 of 2000, heard on 19th June, 2000.
Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Appointment‑‑‑Civil servant had claimed that she was not considered for appointment despite she being qualified and placed at No.5 of the merit list‑‑‑Civil servant had failed to prove her claim‑‑‑Civil servant who had failed to produce P.T.C. Certificate issued by the Controller of Examinations, her application was rightly rejected.
Shahid Hussain Qadri for Petitioner.
Muhammad Amin Dar, Asstt. A.‑G., Punjab for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 19th June, 2001.
JUDGMENT
Case of the petitioner is that she contested for the post of PTC Teacher in pursuance advertisement in daily 'Nawa‑i‑Waqt' dated 5‑10‑1997. According to her she being duly qualified was placed at No.5 of the merit list. However, she was not considered for appointment because her PTC Certificate was issued by the Regional Office and not by the Islamabad Office of Allama Iqbal Open University.
2. Respondents have appeared and have placed on record the parawise comments alongwith Annexures. The merit list has also been enclosed. Learned Assistant Advocate‑General submits that petitioner was never placed at No.5 or for that matter at any number of the merit list. He asserts that the petitioner's application was rejected on the ground that the same was not accompanied with the certificate issued by the Controller of Examinations Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad.
3. When confronted learned counsel failed to show that the petitioner was placed at No.5 of the merit list and was not given the appointment because she failed to produce the certificate from the Controller of Examinations. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the claim of the petitioner. Resultantly this petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
H.B.T./T‑48/L
Petition dismissed.