CHIEF SECREAR Versus SHER MUHAMMAD MAKHDOOM

ORDER

1. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑‑_In these three petitions for leave to appeal, common questions of facts and laws are involved, as such we propose to hear them together and dispose of by one consolidated order. Three respondents named in these petitions separately were appellants before the Sindh Service Tribunal with grievance that exemption granted to them from appearing in Revenue Qualifying Examination could not be withdrawn or cancelled as had been done in their cases. Service Tribunal, vide common judgment dated 11th October, 1990 has allowed appeals of the three respondents, therefore, these three petitions are filed by the Government.

2. There is Revenue Department's Circular No. 3‑47/67‑H/47, dated 6th September, 1952 providing for grant of exemption for promotion to B Grade if the clerk concerned has put in 25 years service and is over 45 years of age. The other condition is that the clerk should have a good record. This circular was amended in 1973, providing for exemption from passing Revenue Qualifying Examination for promotion to B Grade with modification to the extent that the clerk concerned should have over 20 years service and should be over 40 years of age. It, therefore, clearly appears that three criteria are to be kept in view for exemption which are, firstly service over 20 years, secondly age over 40 years and thirdly good service record.

3. Case of the respondents is that they have fulfilled the requirements mentioned above, as such they were granted exemptions first by Member, Board of Revenue, which were subsequently cancelled and in the meantime valuable rights had accrued to them, as they were posted as Assistant Mukhtiarkars for necessary training. In order to find out whether requirements mentioned above, have been fulfilled or not, Service Tribunal has examined the cases of the respondents in detail and in that connection perused their personal records.

4. In the case of respondent Sher Muhammad exemption is cancelled on the ground, inter alia, that he was guilty of violating rule 29 of the Sindh Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1966. Above‑mentioned rule prohibits Government servant from bringing political or other influence in support of any claim arising in connection with his employment. Record did not support allegation against respondent Sher Muhammad, which was barely and briefly mentioned in the show‑cause notice without further explanatory details. In this respect, written statement filed by the Government before the Service Tribunal was also silent on this point. Otherwise personal service file of respondent Sher, Muhammad clearly shows that he fulfils the requirements.

5. So far the remaining two respondents are concerned, namely, Jan Muhammad and Muhammad Ilyas, there is no other specific allegation against them as stated in the impugned judgment and their personal files indicated what they have fulfilled the requirements of exemptions.

6. It was submitted before us on behalf of the petitioners that the authority which has granted exemption is also competent to withdraw the same and secondly, prerequisites mentioned in Circulars of 1952 and 1973 mentioned above, for the purpose of eligibility to exemption, are to be read in conjunction with para. 4 of Revenue Department's Notification No.12‑223‑73‑Estt: III, dated 4‑9‑1977, which reads as under:‑‑

7. "No person shall be eligible for appointment as Mukhtiarkar unless he possesses initiative, strength of character and good personality and is fit for outdoor and office duties and to hold independent charge of the post."

8. On the premise mentioned above, it was submitted before us on behalf of the petitioners that exemptions granted to respondents Jan Muhammad and Muhammad Ilyas were cancelled on the grounds that they did not possess proven experience of revenue work and secondly that they did not have good personality and suitability required for the posts of Mukhtiarkars.

9. It is quite apparent that restrictions imposed in para. 4 of the Revenue Department's Notification mentioned above, pertain to the appointment as Mukhtiarkar and in the cases under consideration will have no bearing for the reason that respondents were granted exemptions in accordance with circulars, requirements of which were duly fulfilled by them and not only that but exemptions were implemented and they receive,, necessary training, as such valuable rights had accrued to them which could not be interfered with. In this context, reference can be made to section 20 of General Clauses Act and guidelines laid down in the case of Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 Supreme Court 407), in which it is held that principle of locus poenitentiae is available to the Government or relevant authorities and further authority which is competent to make order has power to undo it, but such order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded once it has taken legal effect and created certain rights in favour of any individual. It appears that Service Tribunal has allowed appeals of the respondents mainly on this ground with cogent reasons in support thereof. View taken by the Service Tribunal is correct and we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the impugned judgment, which is hereby upheld and leave is refused. In the circumstances, petitions are dismissed.

10. M.B.A./88/C‑S Leave refused.