MUHAMMAD NAEEM vs MUHAMMAD HAROON KHAN and 3 others
This civil appeal arose from an order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal which reinstated the first respondent into service after his employment as a Supervisor had been terminated by the department on the grounds of irregularity. The appellant, who claimed to have secured the first position in the recruitment test, challenged the reinstatement. The core legal question was whether the appellant had the locus standi to maintain the appeal against the reinstatement of the first respondent, given that the appellant was serving as a Secretary of the Union Council and not as a Supervisor at the relevant times. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the appellant was not serving in the relevant post at the time of the first respondent's appointment or termination, and had not directly challenged the first respondent's initial appointment, he could not be considered an aggrieved party. The Court upheld the preliminary objection regarding maintainability and dismissed the appeal as not maintainable.
- Whether a person who is not serving in the relevant cadre or post at the time of another's appointment or termination has the locus standi to challenge an order reinstating that person into service?
- Can an individual who did not challenge the initial appointment of a civil servant subsequently appeal against a Service Tribunal's order directing that civil servant's reinstatement?
ORDER
1. ' SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The above appeal with the leaver of this Court is directed against the order of N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, dated 3-2-1993 whereby the Service Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Muhammad Haroon Khan (respondent No, 1) and directed the official respondents to reinstate him in service with further observation that if the appellant (who was respondent No, 4) in the service appeal, felt aggrieved against irregular appointment of the respondent No, 1, he could seek his remedy before a proper forum. The leave granting order reads as follows:-- "Facts leading to this petition briefly stated are that a post of Supervisor in the Local Government and Rural Development Department, Hazara Division was advertised through press an applications were invited for 15-8-1989. Since tie appointment was to be made on merits, written test was taken in which 80 candidates participated. The petitioner was declared first in the test on obtaining 77 marks. That two months after the above, i.e, on 24-10-1992 the Minister concerned of the Government of N.-W.F.P. Recommender the name of Muhammad Haroon Khan respondent for appointment though he was then overaged, purely on political basis. Allegedly the respondent was put to test and had secured 68 marks. That by order dated 2-6-1992 Director, Local Government and Rural Development Department terminated the services of respondent No, 1 as being irregular and without merits. Respondent No, 1 filed appeal in the Service Tribunal which was allowed because the learned Tribunal presumed that it had no jurisdiction to go into the question appointment being irregular and contrary to law.
2. Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order which is going dislodge him, seeks leave to appeal against the order of the learned Service Tribunal dated 3-2-1993. Leave is granted to consider; whether in the circumstances of the case Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the validity of termination of service of a civil servant if it is not made in accordance with the terms and conditions of his appointment.
3. Stay already granted shall continue"
4. At the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the above appeal. It is contended that neither at the time the respondent No, 1 was appointed as Supervisor in the Local Government and Rural Development Department, Abbottabad, nor on the date his services were terminated, the appellant was serving as Supervisor, and as such, he could not be aggrieved by the impugned order, which only declared the termination of service of respondent No, 1 by the Department as illegal and directed his reinstatement in service. It is admitted before us that on the relevant dates, the appellant was serving as Secretary, Union Council. It is also an admitted position that the appointment of respondent No, 1 in service was not challenged by appellant though he claimed that he stood first in the test and respondent No, 1 was second in position. In these circumstances, the appellant could not challenge the order directing reinstatement of respondent No, 1 in service. The observation of the Service Tribunal that if the appellant was aggrieved by the irregular appointment of respondent No, 1 he could seek remedy before proper forum, could not justify filing of the appeal before this Court against the order of the Tribunal. We, accordingly, uphold the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent No, 1 and dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. There will, however, be no order as to costs, in the circumstances of the case.