P L D 2004 Supreme Court 313 (PLP)

2. Facts briefly are that the respondent was selected as a stipendiary candidate for the post of Forest Guard through order dated 16‑11‑1995 and was to undergo training for six months commencing from the 1st April, 1996. Thereafter, he was posted as Forest Guard under the Range Forest Officer, Dargai.

3. The respondent's services alongwith others similarly appointed Forest Guards were dispensed with through order dated 22‑2‑1997. They filed Constitutional Petition No.492 of 1997 before the Peshawar High Court which was withdrawn through order dated 9‑12‑1997 so as to seek remedy from proper forum.

4. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal before the Tribunal which was accepted through the impugned judgment and as, already stated he was reinstated in service with all back‑benefits. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.

5. We have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with this petition with their assistance. It must be stated at the very outset that the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the other Forest Guards whose services were also dispensed with alongwith the respondent through the same order dated 22‑2‑1997. It is also reflected from the documents and the same is not denied that the selection of the respondent was made simply on political dictation. Neither any advertisement was made to 'fill these' vacancies nor any interview, was held. The codal formalities for the appointments of these posts were flagrantly violated. Such‑like entries in the civil service cannot be countenanced as it generate frustration and despondency among all persons who were having excellent merit but every time they are bypassed through such like back door entries on political interference. Everybody who matters in the functioning of the society has always propagated for the adoption of transparency and merit in appointments, which are cardinal principles of good governance. The Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan has also mandated the same as is reflected from the Article 18 which is in the following terms:‑‑ "

18. Subject to such qualifications, if any, as maybe prescribed by law, every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation, and to conduct any lawful trade or business."

6. However, when it comes to actual practice, these principles are blatantly ignored. The Courts are duty bound to uphold the Constitutional mandate and to keep up the salutary principle of rule of law. In order to uphold these principles it has been stated time and again by the superior Courts that all the appointments are to be made after due publicity in a transparent manner after inviting applications, through Press from all those who are eligible, deserving and desirous. Reference in this regard is made to Abdul Jabbar Memon (1996 SCMR 1349) where the learned Judges in a Human Rights case, directed the Federal Government, Provincial Governments, Statutory Bodies and the Public Authorities to avoid violation of fundamental rights (Article 18 of the Constitution) guaranteeing to every citizen's freedom of profession. This view was reiterated by a Bench of five learned Judges in a case reported in Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad (1993 SCMR 1287) where it was observed as under:‑‑ "

6. What we have noticed in all these cases which are under consideration before us is that appointments of both the parties contesting the appointments were made without such advertisements, publicity or information in the locality from; which the recruitments were, to be made. In view of the Constitutional requirement and the interim order already passed in Human Right Case 104 of 1992 it is expected that in future all appointments shall be made after due publicity in the area from which the recruitment had to take place. This will, however, not apply to short‑term leave vacancies or to contingent employment. " Again in another case, reported in Mushtaq Ahmed Mohal v. Honourbale Lahore High Court (1997 SCMR 1043), a Bench of five learned Judges reiterated this view after quoting in extenso the order passed Mt the aforementioned case titled as Abdul Jabbar Memon (1996 SCMR 1349) stated as under:‑‑ "

17. We reiterate that the appointments to various posts by the Federal Government, Provincial Governments, Statutory Bodies and other Public Authorities, either initial or ad hoc or regular, without inviting applications from the public through the Press, is violative of Article 18 read with Article 2A of the Constitution, which has incorporated the Preamble to the Constitution as part of the same and which inter alia enjoins equality of opportunity and guarantees for certain of an egalitarian society through a new order, which objective cannot be achieved unless, every citizen equally placed or situated is treated alike and is provided equal opportunity to compete inter alia for the posts in aforesaid government set‑ups/institutions." Reference in this regard is also made to the case of Obaidullah v. Habibullah (PLD 1997 S C 835) where the learned Judges again reiterated the afore-quoted paragraph. Reference is also made to the case of Abdur Rashid v. Riazuddin (1995 SCMR 999).

7. However, in spite of all these directions, this salutary principle is being frustrated with impunity. This malady which has plagued the whole society shall be arrested with iron hands and the principle of merits shall be safeguarded', otherwise, it would be too late to be corrected. In the case in hand admittedly the appointment was made clearly in violation of the codal formalities simply on the dictation of a political figure. The learned Tribunal while accepting the appeal has not at all adverted to these aspects. Furthermore it has also not noted the earlier judgment dated 6‑6‑2001 of this very Tribunal whereby the appear filed by the other forest guards who were similarly appointed and whose services were terminated alongwith the respondent through the same order were dismissed.

8. Keeping all the fore‑mentioned features of the case into consideration, we convert this petition into appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 22‑9‑2001. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case. M.H./G‑2/S Appeal allowed.