MUHAMMAD ASIF and another vs DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION PUNJAB
This matter concerns civil petitions filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the termination of the petitioners' services as Junior Clerks. The petitioners were appointed in 1995, but their services were terminated in 1996 by the Care-Taker Government on grounds that the appointments were illegal and fraudulent. The Tribunal found that the appointments were not made by competent authorities, the posts were never advertised, and the appointment orders were supported by fake dispatch numbers. The Supreme Court examined the record and affirmed the Tribunal's findings that the appointments were made surreptitiously to the prejudice of other eligible candidates. The Court held that individuals who do not approach the court with clean hands are not entitled to discretionary relief. Furthermore, the Court ruled that it would not intervene to perpetuate patently unjust, illegal, or fraudulent acts, even if procedural irregularities existed in the orders undoing such wrongs. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, determining that this was not a fit case for intervention under its constitutional jurisdiction.
- Whether a court should grant discretionary relief to a petitioner who does not approach the court with clean hands?
- Can a court intervene to perpetuate an appointment that was found to be illegal and fraudulent?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to refuse leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when the underlying appointments were made without advertisement and by incompetent authorities?
- Section 4, Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' KHALIL-UR-REMAN RAMDAY, J.---Civil Petitions Nos.1767-L and 1768-L of 2000 are being disposed of together as both these petitions arise out of the same consolidated impugned judgment involving similar facts.
2. The petitioners claim to have been appointed to the posts of Junior Clerks in the year 1995. Their services were terminated through an order dated 18-12-1996 by the then Care-Taker Government on account of their appointments being illegal/bogus.
3. The representations filed by them before the departmental authorities remained unsuccessful as a result whereof they finally reached the Punjab Service Tribunal with appeals under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.
4. Having examined the matter in some detail, the learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that the appointments in question had not been made by the competent Authorties, that the availability of the posts in question and had never been advertised inviting applications for the same, that fake dispatch numbers had been assigned to the fake orders as the issuance of the appointment orders did not find mention in the relevant dispatch registers and that in the circumstances such- like appointments which were illegal and frandulent could not be permitted to continue.
5. We have heard the learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioners at some length and have also examined the available record.
6. It is an established principle of administration of justice that any person who had not come to the Courts with clean hands was not entitled to any discretionary relief and even if some procedural illegality was shown to exist in the orders undoing the wrong, the Courts would not intervene to perpetuate a patently unjust, illegal and fraudlent act it was found as a fact by the learned Tribunal in the present case that the appointments were made surreptitiously behind the closed doors to oblige the petitioners to the prejudice of others who may be equally eligible and might be more qualified than the present petitioners and who stood deprived of their right to compete for the said posts on account of the misdeeds of the present petitioners.
7. In this view of the matter, we do not find this a case where this Court, which was mandated to do complete justice, could intervene in terms of Article 212(3) of the Constitution. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed Leave refused.
Cited by 6 cases
- IQBAL UMER Versus KARACHI GYMKHANA 2017 CLCN 173
- Firdous Cloth Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan etc. 2015 LHC 4088
- Firdous Cloth Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan, etc. 2015 LHC 4088, 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 1131
- Firdous Cloth Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs Federation of Pakistan, etc 2016 PTD 257, PTCL 2016 CL. 143
- Messrs FIRDOUS CLOTH MILLS (PVT.) LTD. through Company Secretary vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Finance and others 2016 PTD 257
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and 15 others vs ALLAH WASAYIA and others 2007 PLD Lahore 185