MUHAMMAD ISHTIAQ and others vs PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others
This matter involves a series of petitions for leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals regarding the termination of their employment. The petitioners were initially appointed to various posts in the Directorate of Agriculture (Crop Reporting Service), Punjab, against leave vacancies, but were subsequently adjusted into regular vacancies. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in upholding the termination of the petitioners' services. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, noting that the petitioners' initial appointments were against leave vacancies and their subsequent adjustment into regular vacancies occurred without following the prescribed recruitment procedure, such as advertising the posts, conducting interviews, or preparing a merit list. The Court held that such appointments were void ab initio and could not be sustained. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, determining that the petitions failed to raise any question of law of public importance, thereby upholding the principle that appointments made in violation of mandatory recruitment procedures are legally invalid.
- Can employees appointed against leave vacancies be adjusted into regular vacancies without following formal recruitment procedures?
- Are appointments made without advertising posts or conducting interviews legally sustainable?
- Does the adjustment of employees into regular vacancies without merit assessment render the appointment void ab initio?
ORDER
' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN RAMDAY, J.-- This order shall dispose of C.P.L.As. Nos.1383, 1384, 1385, 1386, 1387, 1388, 1389, 1390, 1391, 1392, 1393 and 1394-L of 2002 which are directed against the same consolidated judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 25-2-2002 through which 12 appeals filed by the petitioners before us, had been dismissed.
2. The petitioners in all these petitions were appointed to different posts in the Directorate of Agriculture (Crop Reporting Service), Punjab, Lahore, against leave vacancies. They continued to retain the said posts in the same capacity till the matter came to the notice of the Secretary, Agriculture and the Provincial Ombudsmen.
3. The continuance of these petitioners in service was thus, examined where after their services were terminated. Their departmental appeals were dismissed which led the petitioners to the Punjab Service Tribunal with their respective appeals which were dismissed through the above- mentioned judgment which is now impugned before us.
4. The Service Tribunal refused to come to the rescue of the petitioners for the reasons mentioned in para,6 of its judgment which is reproduced below for ready reference:-- "(6) The appellants were appointed against leave vacancies. Their services were liable to be terminated as soon as the officials who proceeded on leave reported back to duty but the appellants were adjusted against regular vacancies. The posts were never advertised. Sufficient numbers of applications were not received, no interviews of the appellants were taken by the Recruitment Committee and no merit list was prepared. The appellants were adjusted against regular vacancies without observing Procedure for recruitment and without merit. The adjustment orders being ab initio void cannot be sustained. I find no ground to interfere."
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and having considered all aspects of the matter, we find that no exception could be taken to the impugned judgment and further that these petitions did not disclose any question of law of public importance.
6. These petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Leave refused.
Cited by 1 case
- SALEEM ULLAH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD ISMAIL QURESHI alias ISMAIL QURESHI 2011 PLC (C.S.) 756