MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs SECRETARY HEALTH and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 1st of February, 2001, which dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and nine others challenging the termination of their services. The core legal question concerns the legality of the termination of service of employees recruited as Sanitary Inspectors who failed to acquire the mandatory training within the stipulated period of two and a half years. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacks merit because the petitioner failed to join any training institution to complete the requisite training and establish eligibility for the post, and no question of public importance was involved to justify interference. The court accordingly refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The key principle laid down is that failure to fulfill a mandatory recruitment condition, such as acquiring requisite professional training within the stipulated timeframe, renders service termination lawful, and the burden lies on the employee to prove genuine efforts made toward compliance.
- Whether termination of service is lawful when an employee fails to acquire mandatory training within the stipulated period?
- Does the failure to fulfill a mandatory condition of recruitment raise a question of public importance justifying Supreme Court interference?
- Is an employee required to independently join a training institution to complete required training to hold a post when authorities fail to send them?
ORDER
SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J. -- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 1st of February, 2001 delivered by Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the appeal filed by petitioner alongwith nine other employees against the termination of their services was dismissed.
2. Relevant facts giving rise to the institution of this petition for leave to appeal are that petitioner and nine others were recruited as Sanitary Inspectors subject to the condition that they shall acquire the necessary training within a period of two and a half years. Unfortunately, none of them could acquire the requisite training. Petitioner submits before us that he did apply to the competent authorities for being sent to the concerned Institution but there is nothing on the record to establish it. To the contrary, the petitioner ought to have joined some training institution to complete the required training so as to become eligible to hold the post . No question of public importance is involved justifying interference with the judgment impugned by this Court.
Resultantly, this petition has no merit and the same stands dismissed. Leave to appeal is refused.