MUHAMMAD AZAM ALI And 35 Others vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
The petitioners, who were appointed as ad hoc Civil Judges after failing to qualify in the aggregate of the 1980 competitive examination, sought leave to appeal against the Punjab Service Tribunal's dismissal of their appeal against termination. Their ad hoc appointments were subject to the condition that they must qualify in the next competitive examination to secure regular appointment, failing which their services would be terminated. The petitioners failed the subsequent 1981 examination, leading to their termination. They contended that their appointments should be treated as regular under Section 2(2) of the Civil Servants Act and that the rules were impliedly modified. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prescribed rules for recruitment were neither relaxed nor changed. The appointments were explicitly ad hoc and made otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed rules. Consequently, the termination of their services was lawful, in accordance with the terms of their appointment, and did not violate any vested rights. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Whether an ad hoc civil servant can claim a vested right to regular appointment or continuation in service despite failing to qualify in the prescribed competitive examination?
- Does an ad hoc appointment made outside the prescribed rules of recruitment automatically convert into a regular appointment under the Civil Servants Act?
- Can the terms of an ad hoc appointment, which mandate termination upon failure to pass a subsequent competitive examination, be legally enforced?
- Section 2(2), Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioners who were all ad hoc Civil Judges and whose services stood terminated on their failure to successfully compete in the P.C.S. Judicial Examination seek leave to appeal against the judgment of Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 3rd June, 1984 whereby their appeal against the termination of their services failed.
2. The petitioners, all of them, appeared in the competitive examination for recruitment of Civil Judges in the Punjab in 1980. They failed to qualify in the aggregate. Nevertheless they were appointed ad hoc Civil Judges on terms and conditions indicated hereunder:-- "(i) The appointments shall be on purely temporary/ad hoc basis for a period of six months and the appointees shall have no right to continue in service or have any claim to regular appointment in the service.
(ii)------------------------------------------ (i.e) The appointees shall have to appear in the next competitive examination for Civil Judges to be conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission to qualify themselves for regular appointment. In case they fail to qualify in the next competitive examination with the requisite standard laid down by the Punjab Public Service Commission or acquire a place in the merit list entitling them for regular appointment their ad hoc appointment shall be liable to be terminated immediately after the announcement of the result of the examination even though the period of this ad hoc appointment has not been expired."
3. While holding the posts of ad hoc Civil Judges they again appeared at the competitive examination held in 1981 in order to secure regular appointment. Once again they failed to qualify.
Their services were terminated. They appealed to the Tribunal which rejected their claim as none of their vested right was violated.
4. The contention of the learned counsel is that the same procedure was followed for their appointment as is followed for making regular appointment. Hence notwithstanding the appellation "ad hoc" they on the strength of section 2(2) of the Civil Servants Act have to be treated as regular appointees. In any case, according to the learned counsel, by departing from the prescribed rule of appointment, the Governor acting As he did in consultation with Public Service Commission, shall be deemed to have modified the prescribed rule for making appointments as held in Mukhtar Ahmad and 37 others v. Government of West Pakistan through the Secretary Food and Agriculture, Lahore, and another PLD 1971 SC 846. Further, according to the learned counsel, the petitioners should have been allowed one more chance to appear at the competitive examination.
5. The rules prescribed for recruitment provided not only qualifying marks in individual subjects but also in the aggregate. By not obtaining qualifying marks in the aggregate the petitioners failed to obtain entry according to the prescribed method. The prescribed rule was neither relaxed nor changed, either expressly or by implication. Instead their appointment was taken and expressed to be otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed rule i.e. Ad hoc, on terms reproduced. The termination of their service was in accordance with the law applicable to ad hoc appointments and in accordance with terms and conditions on which they were appointed. They can take as--- many chances as they like, subject of course to their eligibility, but their insistence that their ad hoc appointment should be continued meanwhile is untenable. We find no merit in this petition and leave to appeal is refused.
Cited by 17 cases
- Waleed Khan vs Workers Welfare Fund through Secretary and 3 others 2021 PLC (C.S.) 653
- ABU BAKAR FAROOQ through Chairman and others vs MUHAMMAD ALI 2019 PLC (C.S) 740, 2019 PLJ SC 481, 2020 P.S.C. 941, 2019 SCP 274, 2019
- Abu Bakar Farooq vs Muhammad Ali Rajpar & others 2019 SCP 274
- ABU BAKAR FAROOQ Versus MUHAMMAD ALI RAJPAR 2019 SCMR 830
- ABU BAKAR FAROOQ Versus MUHAMMAD ALI RAJPAR 2019 PLC(CS) 740
- SAFINA BEGUM vs AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2015 PLC (C.S.) 1051
- SAFINA BEGUM, AD-HOC COMPUTER INSTRUCTOR, GOVERNMENT GIRLS HIGH 2015 PLJ AJ&K 150, 2015 PLC (C.S.) 1051
- MUHAMMAD WASAY TAREEN Versus CHIEF JUSTICE OF BALOCHISTAN 2005 PLC(CS) 1085
- Dr. NAVEEDA TUFAIL and 72 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others 2003 SCMR 291
- Dr. NAVEEDA TUFAIL and 72 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB 2003 PLC(CS) 69
- Rana TARIQ SHAUKAT and 634 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 400
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Engineer, Irrigation and others vs AZHAR ABBAS and others 2002 SCMR 1
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others vs AZHAR ABBAS and others 2001 SCMR 1712
- MUHAMMAD SARFARAZ and 174 others vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and others 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1224
- IKRAMUL HAQ Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB 1993 PLC(CS) 243
- SHAHEEN AKHTAR vs GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 70
- Rana Tariq Shaukat And Other vs Government Of The Punjab Through Secretary Education Civil Secretariat, Lahore And Other K.L.R. 2003 Labour &e Services Cases 19