JAVAID AKHTAR CHEEMA and anothers vs DIRECTORATE OF FLORICULTURE
The petitioners, employed as Agriculture Officers, sought adjustment in the newly established Directorate of Floriculture (Training and Research) following the merger of existing departments. Their request was denied by the government on the grounds that they lacked the requisite academic qualifications prescribed by the rules. The petitioners challenged this decision before the Service Tribunal, arguing that the rules in question had previously been declared ultra vires in an earlier judgment. The Tribunal dismissed their appeals, maintaining that the petitioners were unqualified for the new posts. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, the petitioners reiterated that the reliance on the invalidated rules was legally flawed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether absorption or adjustment into a new department constitutes a vested right regarding terms and conditions of service, whether the Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to declare rules ultra vires, and whether the petitioners possessed the necessary qualifications for the posts in question. The Court identified these as critical legal questions requiring further examination to resolve the dispute regarding the petitioners' entitlement to adjustment.
- Can absorption or adjustment in a department be claimed as a matter of right as part of the terms and conditions of service?
- Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to declare service rules ultra vires to the law?
- Are civil servants entitled to adjustment in a new department if they do not possess the prescribed academic qualifications?
- Section 4, Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974
' MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.--- The Directorate of Floriculture and Directorate of Horticultural Research Institute for Floriculture and Landscaping, Government of Punjab (Rawalpindi) were merged and a new Directorate of Floriculture (Training and Research) Punjab was established, therefore, the petitioners, who were employed as Agriculture Officers in the Agricultural Department, Government of Punjab, in pursuance of the policy of adjustment of the employees in the new Directorate, opted for their adjustment but they were not considered for the reason that under the rules, they were not possessing the requisite academic qualification. The petitioners filed representations before Secretary, Agriculture, Government of Punjab, but meanwhile administrative department decided that the officers of other cadres and possessing prescribed qualification, could not be considered for adjustment/absorption in the new Directorate and consequently, they filed appeals before the Service Tribunal for their adjustment and fixation of seniority accordingly but the Tribunal dismissed their appeals with the observation that the petitioners were not holding the requisite educational qualification prescribed under the rules, for adjustment against the post in the new Directorate.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the rules in question governing the subject, have been declared ultra vires to the law by the Tribunal in an earlier case titled Mahmood Khan v.
Government of the Punjab and 3 others decided on 18-12-1999, therefore, the dismissal of the appeals of the petitioners, on the basis of said rules, was not legal and in absence of any rule in the field, the petitioners could not be held not qualified to hold the post of equal status in the new Directorate which was part of the same department. Ms. Salma Malik, learned A.A.-G. Appearing on behalf of Government of Punjab, states that the petitioners having not possessed the requisite qualification, could not be considered for adjustment or absorption in the new Directorate and that the judgment of Tribunal was unexceptional.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that following questions require consideration:--
(a) Whether the absorption/adjustment in a wing of department or in an independent department, can or cannot be claimed as of right as terms and conditions of service and the Service Tribunal can competently adjudicate matters?
(b) Whether the Tribunal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction in respect of terms and conditions of civil servants, under section 4 (ibid), could declare the rules in question ultra vires to law?
(c) What was the prescribed qualification for the posts in the new Directorate and whether petitioners possessed requisite qualification for absorption/adjustment against the posts in said Directorate and were entitled to be adjusted accordingly?
5. Leave is accordingly, granted to consider the above questions.