2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.

By this common judgment, we intend to dispose of the above referred Civil appeals, which are arising out of the impugned judgment passed by learned High Court of Sindh at Karachi vide judgment dated 13.07.2015, whereby the Petitions filed by the Appellants were dismissed as not maintainable.

2. The succinct facts as stated in the case are that the Appellants applied for the advertised post of Assistant HR Officer, following which they had undergone the proper recruitment process and were selected. Subsequently, they were issued appointment letters. However, after the issuance of the appointment letters, which were duly accepted by the Appellants, the Respondent (Civil Aviation Authority) suspended the appointments and then went on to scrap the entire recruitment exercise. The Appellants challenged the said action of the Respondents before the Sindh High Court by preferring Constitutional Petitions, which were heard by the Division Bench of the learned High Court and ultimately the same were dismissed vide the impugned judgment, which has been assailed before this Court.

3. The learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that the learned High Court, while passing the impugned judgment, has overruled objections of the Respondents in regard to the laches and power of the Respondents to withdraw and/or scrap the process of the appointment of the Appellants against the said posts. He contended that the learned High Court, while recording findings on the aforesaid objections raised by the Respondents, had erroneously held that the petitions are not maintainable on account of the fact that the Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations, 2000, of the Respondent are non-statutory. He contended that the learned High Court in fact has overlooked the judgment of the larger Bench of this Court reported as Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority v. Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707), wherein in para-50, this issue was resolved. He further submitted that if the Civil Aviation Authority has passed the order outside the parameter of Service Regulations and such an act could be intervened by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. He contended that if an Authority which has non-statutory rules, in defiance of such rules passes orders, the High Court has jurisdiction to remedy such a way in writ jurisdiction. He next submitted that the judgment referred to hereinabove squarely applies to the case in hand and the writ of the Appellants was maintainable.

4. As against this, the learned Counsel for the Respondents has contended that the Service Regulations of the Civil Aviation are non-statutory. He submitted that under the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982, (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) power is conferred on the Government to frame Civil Aviation Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the Rules framed by the Government (under Rule 4(2)(h)) confer powers on the Civil Aviation Authority to frame Regulations with the condition that such Service Regulations are subject to approval of the Federal Government. He submitted that Civil Aviation Authority has framed Service Regulations in accordance with the Rules, but these Regulations are not approved by the Federal Government till date and therefore, they are non-statutory Regulations and cannot be enforced in constitutional jurisdiction.

5. We have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the record.

6. Admittedly, the Service Regulations of the Civil Aviation Authority are non-statutory as they are not approved by the Federal Government, besides these Regulations do not confer power on the competent Authority to keep in abeyance or o cancel the appointments, which were made pursuant to the process undertaken by the Authority after observing all Codal formalities. From a factual perspective, we have noticed that the Civil Aviation Authority has no concrete cavil to support its decision of scrapping the said appointment process. However, they submit that the order of placing appointments of the Appellants in abeyance was made on the ground that the process initiated by the Authority was not transparent. This contention is not supported by the fact that no action of the competent Authority against those who have initiated the process for appointments of the Appellants and others. If an Authority, after complying with the Codal formalities, appoints any person, it cannot take a somersault after the offer letters issued and once they are accepted in the case in hand.

7. The ground that the process through which the person has passed in order to be awarded an appointment was not transparent, is not sufficient reason for the competent Authority to scrap the appointments of the Appellants who had passed through the proper recruitment process. The Service Regulations of the Civil Aviation Authority do not suggest that once the offer letter has been issued and accepted, the Civil Aviation Authority can scrap the process on the grounds that it was not transparent. There would have been some force in this contention of the Counsel for the Respondents (Civil Aviation Authority) if it was brought on record that persons who initiated the said process were also proceeded against departmentally for misconduct but there is nothing on record that suggests this, rather the Counsel when put to this question also concedes that no action has been taken by the competent Authority against the persons who were involved in the process of appointment of the Appellants.

8. We, therefore, are of the considered view that issue in hand is fully covered by para-50 of the judgment referred to hereinabove, which provides that an aggrieved person can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against a public authority if he satisfies that the act of the authority is violative of the service Regulations even if they are non -statutory.

9. We, for the aforesaid reasons, allow these Appeals holding that the action of the Civil Aviation Authority to scrap the appointments of the Appellants and/or keep them in abeyance after the offer letters were accepted by the Appellants is contrary to the spirit of the Service Regulations of the Civil Aviation Authority. The said action cannot draw any force in the advertisement under which the Authority had reserved the powers to withdraw from the process once the process was complete and the Selection Committee/Board had recommended the appointments of the Appellants. The impugned judgments are set aside. The Appellants shall be reinstated in service in terms of the offer letters issued by the Respondents. MWA/M-70/SC Appeal allowed.