SHAUKAT BABAR VIRK and others vs Syed AMJAD ALI SHAH and otherss
This matter originated from two civil petitions challenging a common judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had allowed a writ petition filed by the respondent. The core legal dispute concerned the validity of the appointment of Shaukat Babar Virk as a Programme Producer on a contract basis. The respondent had successfully challenged this appointment in the High Court, which declared the appointment order to be without lawful authority and directed that the post be treated as vacant, requiring adherence to prescribed service rules for any future recruitment. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the contract period for the disputed appointment had already expired, rendering the appointment no longer alive. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petitions and upheld the High Court's decision, determining that the findings in the impugned order were proper and did not warrant judicial interference. The judgment reinforces the principle that appointments must strictly adhere to established service rules and that expired contractual appointments do not provide a basis for continued litigation regarding their validity.
- Does the expiration of a contractual appointment render a challenge to that appointment moot?
- Must public sector appointments follow prescribed service rules?
- Can a court declare an appointment without lawful authority if it violates service rules?
' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.--- By this single order we intend to dispose of the Civil Petitions Nos.1472 and 1814 of 2004 as they arise out of a common judgment, dated 2-6-2004 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Writ Petition No,4722 of 1998 filed by respondent was allowed.
2. Precisely the facts leading to the filing of the instant petitions are that Shaukat Babar Virk petitioner in Civil Petition No,1472 of 2004 was appointed as Programme Producer on contract basis for a period of two years on 25-9-1996 by petitioner No,2. His appointment was, however, terminated vide notice dated 23-11-1996. However, on the application of said petitioner routed through the Minister for Information and Media Development, he was appointed again on the same terms and conditions vide order, dated 13-9-1997.
3. Amjad Ali Shah petitioner in Writ Petition No,4722 of 1998 and respondent herein challenged the said appointment in the above writ petition which was allowed and the order, dated 13-9-1997 was declared as without lawful authority. It was held that said post would be deemed to be vacant and if petitioner-department wanted to fill the said vacancy, prescribed procedure in the service rules should be followed. Petitioners feeling dissatisfied challenged the said order through the instant petitions.
4. We have heard Mr. Aftab Ahmed, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and have gone through the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
5. Admittedly, the appointment of Shaukat Babar Virk petitioner was on contract basis which period has expired, as such the appointment is not alive. Moreover the findings observed in the impugned order are proper and do not call for any interference.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL RAHEEM Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN 2018 PLC(CS)N 203