ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR
Constt. Petition No.D-2836 of 2015
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
Present:
Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
&
Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed,
Dated of hearing: 26-9-2017
Mr. Suhail Ahmed Khoso, Advocate
for the petitioners a/w the petitioners
Mr. Noor Hassan Malik, AAG a/w
Liaqat Ali Khaskheli, DEO (Primary)
Khairpur, the respondent No.4
O R D E R
Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan J. Through the instant petition orders dated 5th
June, 2015 reproduced as Annexure E, E-1, are impugned in terms of which the
earlier posting orders of the petitioners for PST were withdrawn/cancelled. The
counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners upon seeing
advertisement for PSTs, JSTs and other posts applied for the respective jobs
and after going through the requisite formalities, they were issued offer
letters. However those offer letters were cancelled on 10.7.2006, against which
act various petitions were filed which were allowed by the Hon’ble Bench of
this High Court. Resultantly, contract offers for the period of three years
were again made to the petitioners in the year 2015. A review of offer letters clearly shows that
these were made in pursuance of various Constitutional Petitions filed by the
petitioners. Be that as it may, the petitioners joined their duties pursuant to
the second offer letters and while they were performing their duties, through
the impugned notices of June 2015 even those latter orders were withdrawn. A
review of the impugned withdrawal notices reflects that those offers were
withdrawn citing the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CP
No.186-K of 2013.
The
relevant paragraph-4 of the said judgment which forms basis of those withdrawal
notices and has been reproduced in those orders, is also reproduced hereunder:-
“4. The record shows that certain
appointments were undoubtedly made but on the orders of the Court. It further
transpires that such orders were made with consent of the counsel representing
the Department. However, the learned counsel was unable to refer to any
judgment of the High Court which had allowed the petition of the successful
candidates on merits. The consent order obviously cannot be cited as precedent,
moreso even the scrapping of the examination was maintained by the High Court.
Additionally, the Constitution Petition suffered from laches. By now, almost 8 years have been passed by when the
selection was made and it is too late in the day to direct the appointment of
the petitioners. The petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave declined.”
The
learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
On the
basis of the said
The
learned AAG on the other hand, did not support this view. The learned AAG also raised
an objection as to the maintainability of this petition, contending that even
if it is admitted that the petitioners were offered employment, their cases are
to be presented before the Service Tribunal. It was next contended that even if the
orders are recalled, the Department have no funds to make payment of salaries as
the entire exercise was conducted under a World Bank Program. He further
submitted that if there are any grievance, the petitioners should approach the
competent Scrutinizing Committee created for such purposes. Furthermore, it was
submitted by the learned AAG that three years contract period has already
expired, therefore there is no legitimacy in the offer letters of 2015. Learned
AAG placed reliance on 2012 CLC 16, 2013 PLC (C.S) 696 and 2016 PLC (C.S) 406.
Heard
the counsel, reviewed the material on record. Vide this Court’s order dated
12.9.2017 on the insistence of learned AAG time was granted for filing comments
of respondent No.2, learned AAG suggested that comments of respondents No.5 are
of material importance, however no such comments were filed and in the spirit
of this Court’s order we are placing reliance on the comments filed by the respondent
No.5 which per learned counsel for the petitioner are sufficient to adjudicate
the controversy at hand. Through these
comments, it is reiterated that impugned notices were issued in the light of
When the
paragraph-4 of the said judgment is read in its entirety, it becomes evident
that through the said judgment, the
While the case at hand is totally different. The
petitioners are different, the advertisements are different and in this case,
the earlier offer letters were issued to the petitioners in the year 2006 through
the orders passed in various Constitutional Petitions. Since the only reason
given in the impugned notice for withdrawal of offer is by placing reliance on
paragraph-4 of the Apex Court’s judgment which is not applicable to the
petitioners’ case and no other reasons have been given for withdrawal of their
offer letters, we do not see any legitimacy in the impugned orders which in
fact are in violation of the said Apex Court’s judgment and has been solely
misconstrued to deprive the petitioners from their lawfully obtained employments.
With regard to the objection as to maintainability, it is observed that the
employment offers to the petitioners was temporary, hence they cannot be regarded
as civil servants.
In the given circumstances, the impugned
notices are set-aside and the earlier offer made in the year 2015 for the
contract employment for the terms of three years offered to the petitioners are
upheld. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
Suleman Khan/PA