Sufi.Malik MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND Other
The petitioner sought special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had challenged the termination of his ad hoc appointment as an Additional District and Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly dismissed the constitutional petition in view of the availability of an alternate remedy before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's ad hoc appointment had expired and not been extended, and that the Punjab Service Tribunal provided a more adequate alternate remedy. The Court affirmed the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition, establishing that the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked when an adequate alternate remedy through a service tribunal is available.
- Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 when an alternate remedy is available before the Service Tribunal?
- Does an ad hoc appointment automatically expire upon the lapse of its stipulated term if not extended?
- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal considered a more adequate remedy in service matters than a writ petition?
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J. - Sufi Malik Muhammad Sarfraz was appointed Additional Public Prosecutor at Faisalabad and later as Additional District & Sessions Judge on 25th June, 1977 for a period of six months. He continued to function even after the expiry of this period. The Section Officer, S & GAD then informed him in the middle of April, 1978, on behalf off; the Chief Secretary of the Punjab that his ad hoc appointment had expired in October, 1979 and he was therefore, no more in the Government service. The petitioner felt aggrieved and filed Writ Petition No. 5678/S of 1978 which was dismissed by an order of that Court dated 21st February, 1979. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. The petitioner is not in a position to show that his ad hoc appointment was extended. The letter on behalf of the Chief Secretary, therefore, only conveyed to him the correct position. Even if he had a grievance the proper forum for him to approach was the Punjab Service Tribunal but he instead went to the High Court. The jurisdiction of the High Court in these matters is controlled by Article 199 which specifically lays down that jurisdiction is to be exercised only if there is no alternate remedy.
It cannot be denied that an appeal before the Tribunal L'S more adequate remedy than is furnished by a writ petition before the High Court. It was for this that the High Court. Dismissed the writ petition and we fully agree with it in the finding. This petition has, therefore, no force and is dismissed.