2000 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Common questions of law and of fact are involved in the following appeals:‑‑ (1) Appeal No. 1035 of 1993 (Khalid Mahmood v. S.E. and others). (2) Appeal No. 1039 of 1993 (Azhar Munir Tracer v. S. E. and others) (3) Appeal No.1040 of 1993 (M. Tahir Bashir v. S.E. and others). (4) Appeal No. 1041 of 1993 (Ali Ahmed v. S. E. and others). (5) Appeal No. 1042 of 1993 (Muhammad Rafique v. S. E. and others). (6) Appeal No. 1043 of 1993 (Abdus Salam v. S.E. and others). (7) Appeal No. 1044 of 1993 (Muhammad Javaid v. S. E. and others). (8) Appeal No. 1045 of 1993 (Muhammad Riaz v. S. E. and others). Accordingly, all of them are being disposed of by this single judgment.

2. The facts of these appeals are that respondent No. 1 had issued an advertisement, dated 1‑5‑1992 in the daily "Pakistan" calling applications for filling up vacancies of Junior Clerks, Tracers, Mans and Watermen. The appellants applied for the above posts. They were called, interviewed and selected by the Selection Committee. In the case of Junior Clerks, typing tests were also held on 15‑9‑1992. Before the appointment letters could be issued, the Government imposed ban on new recruitments. The ban was, however, lifted vide circular letter, dated 12‑8‑1993 (Annexure 'F') issued by the Secretary C&W, Government of the Punjab. Upon receipt of this circular letter, respondent No. l issued appointment letters on 16‑8‑1993 which contained terms and conditions of service as envisaged under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules. 1974. In pursuance of the appointment letters, the appellants joined their duties. Medical fitness certificates were also produced by them as obtained from the concerned Medical Superintendents.

3. On 30‑9‑1993, respondent No.2 issued a Teleprinter message (Annexure K) directing that the appointments were made in violation of the revised recruitment policy, upon which respondent No. 1 issued the impugned order, dated 30‑9‑1993 terminating the services of the appellants (Annexure J). Their departmental appeals were rejected as "time‑barred" as also being "against the spirit of the revised recruitment policy circulated by the Government" vide the impugned orders, dated 25‑10‑1993.

4. The respondents in their written comments admitted the factual position but contended that the services of the appellants were rightly terminated on "the directive of the Secretary, C&W, dated 27‑9‑1993". It was also their stance that "E&D Rules, 1975 were not applied, hence question of personal hearing did not arise". Para. 14(v) of the comments may be seen.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

6. The contention of the appellants was that they having been duly appointed by the appropriate Selection Authority before the revised merit policy had actually reached the office of the respondent No. 1. their services could not have been terminated even during probation period without having resort to proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975.

7. As already noted above, it has been admitted by the respondents in their comments that no show‑cause notice was ever issued to the appellants E before terminating their services. It has also been admitted in the comments that the termination orders were passed on the directive issued by the Secretary, C&W, Government of the Punjab which had reached their office much after the joining of the appellants in pursuance of the appointment letters duly issued to them. It was ruled in Muhammad Amjad v. Chief Engineer (1998 PSC 337) that in case of a probationer and even a contractee, a show‑cause notice was must before terminating his services. Principles of natural justice are supposed to be part of every statute unless, of course, those are specifically excluded as of necessity in certain situations. In the cases in hand, the respondents admit that no show‑cause notice was given to the appellants. Instead, their plea was that their services were terminated on the directive issued by the Secretary, C&W Government of the Punjab. If the "authority" which here was respondent No. 1, had issued the impugned termination orders only and only under the dictates of the directive of the Secretary as aforesaid, those could not be regarded, by any stretch of imagination, as having been issued with lawful authority. Likewise, the representations filed by the appellants were rejected by respondent No.2 for the reasons that appointments were not made in accordance with the "spirit of the revised policy". It may be noted that in the comments, the respondents had admitted that revised policy had reached their office when the appellants had already joined their duties in pursuance of the appointment letters issued to them. That being so, a right had come to vest in the appellants on having joined their duties and consequently, the respondents had no locus poenitentiae. Munawar Khan v. D.I.‑G. and others (1996 PLC (C.S.) 122) and Dr. Mariam Ashraf v. Secretary, PPSC and others (1992 PLC (C.S.) 136) are authorities aptly, applicable to the circumstances of the present appeals. In the latter‑mentioned authority, it was ruled that "the law applicable, as on the day of selection or on the date the applications were invited, would govern the field.

8. As pointed out above, the appellants are serving the respondent ?Department for about seven years to the satisfaction of the authorities. They possessed the requisite qualifications for the relevant posts, had undertaken the test/interview, were declared successful and were duly given the charge of the assignments. Now if some irregularity in the appointments‑ was committed by the department itself, no fault could be attributed to the appellants. The respondent‑Department could not be allowed to take benefit out of its own lapses/failings. Reference in this behalf may be made to 1996 PLC (C.S.) 927) and 1996 SCMR 1350. This legal position could not be controverted by the learned District Attorney.

9. For what has been discussed and observed above, I hold that the impugned orders, dated 30‑9‑1993 and 25‑10‑1993 passed by respondents Nos. l and 2 respectively, were unjust, unwarranted and vioaltive of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, all the eight (8) appeals are accepted and the impugned orders are set aside with the result that the appellants will continue .in service. The parties are left to bear their costs.