ABDUR RAUF Versus

ORDER

The petitioners are at present, confirmed Government servants but their appointments had been made within the period stipulated in section 12‑A of the Civil Servants Act. They challenge the order of the Government asking them to appear before the Federal Public Service Commission, in order to see if they were suitable to be retained in services.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioners are permanent Government servants, they cannot be asked to appear before the Federal Public Service Commission under rule 4 of 1978 Rules. The learned Deputy Attorney‑General who appears for the Government states that this procedure which is much more beneficial, had been adopted in the interest of justice, though the Government could have passed an order removing them from service straightaway under section 12‑A referred to above.

3. As the Public Service Commission Rules, have not been specifically applied or adopted under section' 12‑A by the Government, the objection of the petitioners is technically correct. However, if the respondents have only adopted it as a method of testing the suitability of an employed covered by section 12‑A, it cannot be said to be without lawful authority. On the other hand, an employee, who does not want to benefit from this method cannot be obliged by the Government to follow it, without specifically making it applicable to such cases.

4. Be that as at may, as the petitioners do not want to get any benefit from that procedure, they need not follow it, at the pain of being proceeded against under section 12‑A, in case the Government chooses so to do.

The impugned order, under the circumstances, is declared to be without lawful authority. There will be no order as to costs.