2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ASIF MEHMOOD Versus DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH KPK through Director General Health Department and 4 others
| Citation | 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Peshawar High Court (Abbottabad Bench) |
| Bench Members | Abdul Latif Khan and Malik Manzoor Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASIF MEHMOOD Versus DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH KPK through Director General Health Department and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Peshawar High Court (Abbottabad Bench) bench comprising: Abdul Latif Khan and Malik Manzoor Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ASIF MEHMOOD Versus DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH KPK through Director General Health Department and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Akmal for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- 5. Perusal of the record reveals that on the recommendation of District Selection Committee, respondent No.4 was appointed as Chowkidar BPS-1 on temporary basis without pension and gratuity. The petitioner alleged in his petition that he being donor of the property was entitled to be appointed on the said post. As per judgment delivered by the apex court in case titled "Hamid Ullah and 9 others v. Head Mistress Government Girls School Chokara District Karak" 1997 SCMR 855, in the case of agreement to transfer of land in consideration of employment is in nature of sale of public office, therefore, such agreement is declared illegal and against the public policy being hit by Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872. Even otherwise, agreement in question seems to be perpetuity for all times to come, generation after generation and the other fellow if eligible to be appointed under the relevant provision of Appointment and Transfer Rules, 1989, has no expectancy to be appointed for all times to come. The landless poor citizen would also deprived of expectation for appointment as class-IV employee if the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted. It has been settled that offer of post as against donation of land amounts to sale of office is unlawful then there remains no option for respondents but to refuse the application of petitioner. Thus, after passing the judgment, there left no authority with the official respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post in lieu of which his father donated land for the construction of BHU Hospital in the year 2006. No case for interference of this court is made out in favour of the petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Plea of petitioner was that he was entitled to the employment on the strength of donation of land by his father for construction of Basic Health Unit Hospital which was denied to him and respondent was appointed
Respondent was appointed as Chowkidar on temporary basis without pension and gratuity on the recommendation of District Selection Committee
Agreement in question between donor of land and authorities seemed to be perpetuity for all times to come, generation after generation and other person if eligible to be appointed
Offer of post as against donation of land would amount to sale of office which was unlawful
No case for interference was made out in favour of petitioner
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Hamid Ullah and 9 others v. Head Mistress Government Girls School Chokara District Karak 1997 SCMR 855 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MALIK MANZOOR HUSSAIN, J.
Through the instant constitutional petition, the petitioner has sought declaration to the effect that he may be declared entitled to the employment on the strength of donation of six kanals of land for construction of Basic Health Unit Hospital in his native village.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant petition are that father of the petitioner donated six kanals of land for construction of BHU Hospital Sarhan in favour of Health Department. At the time of transfer of land, the father of the petitioner executed an iqrar-nama with condition of the appointment of his son in the Health Department. In deviation of the said settlement, respondent No.4 has been appointed as Chowkidar through Office Order dated 24.10.2014 and being aggrieved, the petitioner has assailed the said appointment order by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of this court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that being donor of the land, it was incumbent upon the official respondents to appoint the petitioner as Chowkidar but as against that respondent No. 4 was employed who had got no qualification, nor eligible for appointment on the said post.
4. Arguments heard and record perused.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that on the recommendation of District Selection Committee, respondent No.4 was appointed as Chowkidar BPS-1 on temporary basis without pension and gratuity. The petitioner alleged in his petition that he being donor of the property was entitled to be appointed on the said post. As per judgment delivered by the apex court in case titled "Hamid Ullah and 9 others v. Head Mistress Government Girls School Chokara District Karak" 1997 SCMR 855, in the case of agreement to transfer of land in consideration of employment is in nature of sale of public office, therefore, such agreement is declared illegal and against the public policy being hit by Section 23 of Contract Act, 1872. Even otherwise, agreement in question seems to be perpetuity for all times to come, generation after generation and the other fellow if eligible to be appointed under the relevant provision of Appointment and Transfer Rules, 1989, has no expectancy to be appointed for all times to come. The landless poor citizen would also deprived of expectation for appointment as class-IV employee if the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted. It has been settled that offer of post as against donation of land amounts to sale of office is unlawful then there remains no option for respondents but to refuse the application of petitioner. Thus, after passing the judgment, there left no authority with the official respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post in lieu of which his father donated land for the construction of BHU Hospital in the year 2006. No case for interference of this court is made out in favour of the petitioner.
6. In view of what has been discussed above, particularly in the existence of judgment rendered by Apex Court in case titled ibid, the instant petition is dismissed in limine. With no order as to costs. ZC/71/P Petition dismissed.