1997 PLP 1460 (SCMR)

MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑Syed Imran Raza, petitioner herein, seeks leave to appeal against judgment dated 4‑9‑1995, of the Lahore High Court, whereby Writ Petition No. 11462 of 1995 filed by him, was dismissed in limine,

2. The relevant facts of the case briefly stated are that on 7‑6‑1995 the petitioner was appointed as Octroi Clerk in Zila Council, Gujranwala, in Basic Pay‑Scale No.5 alongwith other candidates, by the District Recruitment Committee constituted in terms of Rule 4 of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service), Rules, 1974. The minimum qualification for the said post was Matriculation. The petitioner secured II Division in the Matriculation Examination. The petitioner was to remain on probation for a period of two years. He reported for duty on 13‑6‑1995 and assumed charge of the duties on the same date. It appears that on 18‑6‑1995 a corrigendum, deleting the name of the petitioner from the list of the selected candidates, was issued, and in his vacancy Shahbaz Ahmad respondent No.6 was appointed. On 19‑6‑1995 the Chief Officer of the Zila Council, Gujranwala, issued an office order stating that as declared by the District Recruitment Committee, Gujranwala, the appointment of the petitioner from the recruitment list was cancelled due to less qualification and in his place respondent No.6 was appointed by the Committee. The petitioner compelled under the circumstances on the following day viz. 20‑6‑1995 moved the National Industrial Relations Commission, wherein the operation of the impugned corrigendum dated 18‑6‑1995 was suspended. The Zila Council authorities felt infuriated; the petitioner was transferred from place to place, and ultimately his services were terminated on 15‑8‑1995, on a frivolous plea of unsatisfactory service. The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court against the impugned order dated 15‑8‑1995 through Constitutional petition, which was dismissed vide impugned order referred to above.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the learned Single Judge in Chamber, dismissed the writ petition filed by him on the ground that the petitioner had alternative remedy by way of appeal against the impugned order, which clearly overlooks the provisions of Rule 1(3) of the Punjab Local Councils (Appeal) Rules, 1980, wherein appeals by servants of Local Councils relating to their service stand excluded from its purview. It was further argued that the name of respondent No.6 was substituted in place of the petitioner for political reasons, as he was not examined by the Recruitment Committee with. other candidates. It was pointed out that there were number of other candidates, who were only Matriculates and some of them third divisioners whose services have not been terminated. The discriminatory treatment meted out to the petitioner speaks for extraneous reasons employed for ousting him from service. It is further argued that the Administrator contemplated by section 26‑A of the Punjab Local Councils Ordinance, cannot be substituted for and treated as Local Council, which is a body corporate and has distinct a legal identity. Section 166 of, the Ordinance was , wholly inapplicable; the proceedings taken and orders passed by the Recruitment/Selection Committee constituted under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, cannot be deemed to be action under the Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The servants of the Local Council are not civil servants; unlike members of the Punjab Local Servants Council, who are deemed to be civil servants and their appeals would lie to the Service Tribunal. It was lastly contended that the Recruitment Committee/Selection Committee once had issued the list of the selected candidates on 29‑5‑1995, and after the same conveyed had taken legal effect and created legal rights, which could not be, rescinded for ulterior motive prejudice to the interest of the petitioner.

4. The contentions raised by learned counsel highlighted above require` consideration. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted.

5. The operation of the impugned corrigendum dated 18‑6‑1995. issued by the District Selection/Recruitment Committee to the extent of the appointment of the petitioner, is suspended, and all consequential orders passed by the respondents qua him, in respect thereto, are also stayed meanwhile. A.A./I‑261/S Leave granted.