MUHAMMAD ZARIN Versus PRINCIPAL, GOVERNMENT HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, SHAHPUR
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed appeals filed by petitioners challenging the termination of their services while on probation. The petitioners, appointed as Laboratory Attendant and Naib-Qasid respectively, alleged their services were terminated to accommodate private respondents appointed at the behest of a Provincial Minister. The petitioners contended that their own appointments, while also made without advertisement, were similar to those of the private respondents, and that the Tribunal failed to address the illegality of the private respondents' appointments under established recruitment rules. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave regarding the petitioners' reinstatement, noting they were on probation and their initial appointments violated recruitment rules. However, the Court granted leave to consider whether the Service Tribunal was legally obligated to examine the validity of the private respondents' appointments, given that such direct appointments without advertisement contravene established recruitment rules as previously enunciated by the Supreme Court. The core legal question is the Tribunal's duty to adjudicate the legality of appointments made in violation of recruitment rules.
- Is a Service Tribunal obligated to examine the legality of appointments made in violation of recruitment rules when raised in an appeal?
- Can a probationer claim reinstatement if their initial appointment was made in violation of recruitment rules?
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J.--- By this common order we intend to dispose of the above two petitions for leave to appeal, which are directed against the judgments dated 24-10-1995 passed by the learned N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No.387 of 1995 filed by petitioner Muhammad Zarin in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.644 of 1995 and Appeal No.385 of 1995 filed by petitioner Bakht Baidar in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.645 of 1995 against the termination of their services while they were on probation. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
2. The brief facts are that petitioner Muhammad Zarin was appointed on or about 24-1-1995 as a Laboratory Attendant whereas petitioner Bakht Baidar was appointed on 1-2-1995 as Naib-Qasid in the Government Higher Secondary. School, Shahpur, both in Grade-1. It is averred that while they were on probation their services were terminated and in their place the private respondents at the behest of a Provincial Minister were taken in service. The petitioners thereupon filed the above appeals before the Tribunal. In the memo. of appeals the petitioners had not only prayed for setting aside the above termination orders of their services but had also prayed for setting aside the appointments of the private respondents on the ground of violation of recruitment rules. However, the Tribunal dismissed both the appeals on the basis of the reasons recorded in Appeal No.385 of 1995.
3. In support of the above two petitions Mr. Qazi M. Anwar learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that no doubt the petitioners were also appointed directly without any, advertisement as required by the recruitment rules and that their services were terminated while they were on probation, but the Tribunal was obliged to examine the question whether the private respondents could have been allowed to continue in service, though admittedly they were recruited in violation of the recruitment rules and contrary to the law enunciated by this Court in the case of Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad and 7 others (1993 SCMR 1287) in which, inter alia, it has been held that direct appointment without advertisement is in violation of the recruitment rules and, therefore, is not permissible.
4. We are not inclined to grant leave to consider the question, whether the Tribunal has rightly declined the relief of reinstatement to the petitioners admittedly they were employed in violation of the recruitment rules and their services were terminated while on probation and hence no exception can be taken. However, we are inclined to grant leave to consider the question, whether the Tribunal yeas bound to examine the legality of the appointments of the respondents in view of the above judgment of this Court and the relevant recruitment rules.
Leave is accordingly granted.
A.A./M-143/S Leave granted.