2010 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MEHTA KAILASH NATH KOHLI, J.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that in pursuance of Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad U.O. No.1/16/Admn./2003 dated 13th August, 2003, the petitioners were appointed against the posts of Inspectors (BPS-11) in the Collectorate of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, Quetta, on ad hoc basis for a period of twelve months, vide appointment orders dated 15th September, 2003, issued by respondent No.2. It was case of the petitioners that they along with other ad hoc appointees have undergone basic departmental trainings, while some of the petitioners have also obtained training in Customs, Sales Tax, Bomb Disposal, Appraisement and have acquired computer skills. It was stated that the service contract of petitioners remained extended from time to time up to 31st March, 2008. It has been stated that the Federal Board of Revenue (F.B.R.) is in process of establishing Model Customs Collectorate in accordance with the requirements of World Trade Organization (WTO), and in order to have the best possible staff and to provide better facilities to the employees, the F.B.R. (respondent No.1) initiated internal job posting (IJP) process, wherein the petitioners participated and were declared qualified by respondent No.1, vide letter, dated 13th August, 2007. Record reflects that the services of one of the colleagues of petitioners namely Abdul Aziz Umrani, Appraiser, who was appointed on ad hoc basis along with petitioners have been regularized, while the petitioners were assured that their services will also be regularized in due course, however; their period of ad hoc appointment was extended from time to time. Record shows that vide order, dated 31st March, 2008 issued by Headquarter Deputy Collector, Custom House Quetta, the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with, thus; the present petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed and following prayers has been sought:

"It is accordingly respectfully prayed that it may be declared:

(a) That the order, dated 26th March, 2008 communicated by respondent No.2 vide letter dated 31st March, 2008 is discriminatory, mala fide, unconstitutional, in excess of authority and of no legal effect. (b) That the respondents be directed to regularize/confirm the services of the petitioners. (c) Pending disposal of the petition, the respondents be restrained from filling up the vacancies in question, became available due to termination. (d) Any other order as may be deemed fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded in the interest of justice." Notice of the petition was given to the other side. Pursuant to notice, parawise comments were filed by respondent No.1, wherein objections were raised that; (a) the present petition is not maintainable under Article 212 of the Constitution; (b) the services of the petitioners fall under the domain of Civil Servants .Act, hence the grievances of the petitioners cannot be redressed under the Constitutional jurisdiction; (c) the petitioners have no vested right as per their appointment. contracts, thus; they are not entitled for any relief; (d) certain allegations have been levelled against the respondent, which need evidence, hence; this Court has no jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to have a judicial review of the matter. On merit also, claim of the petitioner has been refuted and denied. It has been stated that eighteen Inspectors and two Sepoys were appointed by the F.B.R. Islamabad on contract/ad hoc basis for a period of twelve months and the contract was extended from time to time. It has been further stated that F.B.R., Islamabad vide letter dated 26th March, 2008 informed that since 'the Prime Minister has approved extension in the contract period of forty-three employees upto 31st March, 2008, therefore, it is not desirable to re-refer the matter to the Prime Minister for further extension. The officials on completion of their contract on 31st March, 2008 be relieved, thus; in compliance of said directives of F.B.R., the services of petitioners were dispensed with accordingly vide order C.No.CB/ad hoc Appointment/AR/05/2003/9373-9412, dated 31st March, 2008. It was stated that none of the Inspectors have gone through the basic training, which is carried out at Directorate of Training, Karachi, however, some of them have gone through basic computer courses, and the extension/termination of contract is the sole authority of F.B.R./Prime Minister of Pakistan. It was further stated that the selection of petitioners through IJP is only a measurement of certain skills, which by itself does not confer any right/amendments in service contract appointment Rules, which is explicit to the extent of termination of services by the competent authority. It was stated that as far as ad hoc appointment of Abdul Aziz Umrani Appraiser is concerned, the same were regularized under the directives of the Prime Minister in relaxation of all relevant procedure and regulations relating to the initial appointment. Mr. H. Shakeel Ahmed Advocate appeared on behalf of petitioners, while Chaudhry Mumtaz Yousaf, Standing Counsel assisted by Mr. Muhammad Azam, Law Officer, Custom appeared on behalf of respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner has urged that the petitioners have been appointed on Ad hoc basis and had undergone various examinations and training programmes, as such; they are entitled to be regularized as permanent civil servants. Learned counsel has further stated that one Abdul Aziz Umrani has been appointed as Appraiser on ad hoc basis has been regularized by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, as such; the action of respondents in not confirming the petitioners is discriminatory. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has contended that the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter is barred by under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. In alternative, it was stated that an ad hoc employee does not carry any vested legal right to be confirmed,' as such; the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed for. We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of record, it is crystal clear that the petitioners were appointed on ad hoc basis and had undergone various examinations and courses, and thereafter, their employment was kept on extending till 31st March, 2008. An ad hoc appointment is always made without adopting due process of law of selection as has been held by the Superior Court and is virtually a stop-gap arrangement by the Government. The stop-gap arrangement is a deviation from the normal course of selection. It was duty of the concerned officials to have referred the said posts for selection to the competent authority, who should have advertised the same immediately. We are in full agreement with the learned Standing Counsel that the ad hoc employees do not carry any vested legal right to be confirmed. Such view was also taken by the honourable apex Court in the cases of Province of Punjab through Chief Engineer, Irrigation and others v. Azhar Abbas and others 2002 SCMR 1 and Dr. Naveeda Tufail and others v. Government of Punjab and others 2003 PC (C.S.)

69. The whole case-law was threshed out and their Lordships were of the view that the ad hoc employees do not carry vested right. The present petition is thus; barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as it relates to the terms and conditions of service and regularization of the petitioners. We, however, direct the official respondents that the government while selecting or filling the posts, should also consider the cases of the petitioners sympathetically through selection by Public Service Commission or Departmental Appointment Committee, as is permissible under law, and; the petitioners may also be considered in the process of selection. It would be relevant to point out that while selection, their experience and training, which they have obtained, should be considered as additional factors for appointment on the said posts. With the above observations, petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./24/Q Order accordingly.