Prof Dr. M. FAHEEMUDDIN vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others
This matter arises from a petition directed against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his retirement and cessation of office. The core legal question revolves around whether a chairman of an educational board appointed on deputation can continue in office after attaining the age of superannuation. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal rightly concluded that upon attaining superannuation, the petitioner's deputation appointment automatically came to an end, and no legal flaw existed in the impugned judgment. The Court laid down the principle that a deputationist cannot hold public office beyond the age of superannuation, and matters concerning service tribunals involving pure questions of fact without any question of law of public importance do not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction.
- Whether an appointment on deputation to the office of Chairman of an educational board automatically comes to an end upon attaining the age of superannuation?
- Does a service matter concerning the retirement of a deputationist involve a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Section 14(2), Sindh Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance 1972
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
' IRSHAD HASAN KAHN, C.J.---This petition is directed against the judgment dated 12-4-2001 of the Sindh Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,38 of 2000.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Education, Karachi for a period of 3 years in terms of section 14(2) of the Sindh Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1972. The Tribunal after perusing the material available on record, recorded a finding of fact that the appointment of the petitioner was on deputation basis. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in holding that the petitioner having attained the age of superannuation could not continue to hold the Office of Chairman of the said Board and his appointment automatically came to an end.
3. We do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal, Furthermore, no question of law of public importance within the contemplation of Article 212 (3) of the Constitution is involved warranting interference. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave refused.