2011 SCMR 585 (PLP)

SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.

This is petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 27-4-2009, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. The contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner though was initially appointed against leave vacancy as Sub-Engineer, Vehari, yet his services were regularized/adjusted, later, whose order of appointment could not be withdrawn without any show-cause notice or hearing him, as has been done through order dated 21-5-2008. According to him, he could not penalized for the intervention of the Chief Minister's Secretariat. He has made reference to Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Zakat/Social Welfare. Department, Peshawar and another v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 413, Province of Punjab through Secretary, Agriculture, Government of Punjab and others v. Zulfiqar Ali 2006 SCMR 678 and Mian Tariq Javed v. Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 2 others 2008 SCMR 598.

3. On notice, the learned Additional Advocate-General has appeared along with departmental representative, who has the relevant record with him. It has been pointed out by the latter that the appointment of the petitioner was without any legal backing and was void not having been made by .following the prescribed procedure or by the competent authority and even the Punjab Public Service Commission was bypassed. It is contended that it is the petitioner, who manoeuvred his appointment through devious means and the Tribunal has rightly dismissed his appeal.

4. From the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Engineer on work charge basis by the Executive District Officer, Works and Services, Vehari vide letter dated 27-4-2006. Thereafter on 6-7-2006, on his application the Chief Minister's Secretariat, Punjab, recommended his adjustment "against leave vacancy subject to availability". Compliance thereof was ensured by the reminder from the Secretariat dated 21-7-2006. He was accordingly appointed on 27-7-2006, by the District Coordination Officer, Vehari, against the post falling vacant "due to earned leave of Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Saleemi, Sub-Engineer". The said order clearly mentioned that "his service will automatically stand abolished on the day Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Saleemi reports his arrival in the office." Copy of the order was endorsed to the Chief Minister's Secretariat. He then applied to the DCO, Vehari for transfer to Mailsi and was transferred on 27-12-2006 from the office of DDO (Building), Veharito DDO (Buildings) Mailsi, against vacant post. Thereafter, on 17-11-2007 DDO Works, Vehari, wrote to the District Officer (Buildings), Vehari, that he will work as long as the post is vacant. On consideration of the matter that the initial recruitment to the post of Sub-Engineer was to be made on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission, order dated 27-7-2006, was withdrawn on 21-5-2008. Against this, his departmental representation was rejected on 19-6-2008. He then filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was dismissed on 27-4-2009.

5. In the context and the circumstances of the case paragraph 5 of the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal may here be reproduced:- "

5. Above all, in para 5 of the Recruitment Policy, 2004 of Government of the Punjab circulated vide letter No.SOR-IV (S&GAD)10-1/2003 dated 17-9-2004 it had been provided that initial recruitment on regular basis to the posts of Sub-Engineers in Communication and Works Department shall be made on the recommendations of Punjab Public Service Commission. Neither the appellant being a recommendee of Punjab Public Service Commission, nor the said Recruitment Policy having, been relaxed in his case by the Chief Minister through any order, his claim for regular appointment as Sub-Engineer has absolutely no legality and is simply deplorable."

6. It has been established from the record that the appointment of the petitioner was not through the prescribed mode, for which he cannot blame the others as he himself had been approaching Chief Minister's Secretariat for this purpose. The correspondence and orders on record establish beyond any doubt that he had been exerting and mustering extraneous support and pressure for his appointment dehors the prescribed manner and procedure. Adoption of such devious means in securing employment in public service cannot be countenanced. Reliance upon the Sadullah Khan's case, supra, is inapt inasmuch as the Tribunal in that case had allowed reinstatement as the appointment of another person Razia Sultana had been rectified by re-appointment. In Zulfiqar Ali's case, supra, the action of the department had been found mala fide. The case of Mian Tariq Javed, supra, also does not help the petitioner. The distinguishing feature of the case of the petitioner is that he had been appointed against a leave vacancy, who could not claim to have been appointed on regular basis unless the prescribed procedure was followed. This obvious distinction in the case of the petitioner and the precedent cases, cannot be ignored.

7. It may be observed that the acceptance of the plea of the petitioner would mean the revival of his appointment, which was void ab initio. The Court cannot give premium to any such illegality. The petition for leave to appeal lies only on established principles governing grant or refusal of leave to appeal. This jurisdiction cannot be invoked for perpetuation of any illegality or injustice. We find no justification to interfere with the order passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby his appeal was dismissed.

8. By declining leave to appeal, the petition is dismissed accordingly. S.A.K./M-103/SC Leave refused.