PLC(CS) 2008

2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

SALMAN ADIL SIDDIQUI and others Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi High Court
Decided Date
C.P. No.D-2193 of 2006, decided on 5th October, 2007.
Honorable Judges
Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Faisal Arab, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Karachi High Court
Bench Members Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Faisal Arab, J
Parties SALMAN ADIL SIDDIQUI and others Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed, C.J. and Faisal Arab, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (SALMAN ADIL SIDDIQUI and others Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Shoa-un-Nabi for Petitioner.
  • Abdul Jabbar Lakho, A.A.-G. for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Civil Service

Appointment

Grievance of petitioners was that despite having been selected for appointment through the Public Service Commission, they had not been issued appointment letters

Authorities had contended that recommendations of the Public Service Commission were forwarded with a summary to the competent authority, but no orders had been passed thereon

Authorities had claimed that in the absence of such order, there was no guarantee for their appointment

Contention was repelled on the ground that though recommendations of Public Service Commission did not create the strict vested- right, but at least they gave rise to a legitimate expectation

Recommendations of such a body ordained by the Constitution, could not be brushed aside, except for very good reasons

Once the recommendations of the Public Service Commission were available with the Department, an appropriate order in terms thereof or rejecting those for valid and proper reasons, ought to have been passed within a reasonable time

Any Authority endowed with the performance of public duties, could not neglect to perform its duties indefinitely

Authorities were directed by High Court that decision on a summary be taken within specific period. Manthar Ali Jatoi v. Government of Sindh 1998 PLC (C.S.) 344 and Chairman Regional Transport Authority v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company PLD 1991 SC 14 ref.

Judgment & Decree

The Provincial Government had requisitioned certain posts of lecturers in different disciplines and test and interviews were conducted by the respondent No.3 i.e. Sindh Public Service Commission. Advertisement for test and interviews issued in June, 2005. The selection process was completed in June, 2006 and a list of 91 successful candidates was released to the press and communicated to the Education Department Government of Sindh. The petitioners' grievance is that despite having been selected for appointment in the normal manner i.e. through the Public Service Commission, they have not been issued appointment letters.

2. The respondent No.3 Sindh Public Service Commission, have not contested the petitioners claim. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 Provincial Government have only asserted that the recommendations of the respondent No.3 were forwarded with a summary to the competent authority, but no orders have been passed so far. They have claimed that in the absence of such orders "there is no surety for appointment". With profound respects, we are unable to uphold the view that the recommendations of the Public Service Commission are meant to be utterly meaningless unless approval is accorded by the appointing authority at his sweet will and pleasure in his own time. Though such recommendations may not create the strict vested right at least they give rise to a legitimate expectation and it is well-settled that the commendations of such a body ordained by the Constitution cannot be brushed aside except for very good reasons as repeatedly held by the superior Courts. One may conveniently refer to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Manthar Ali Jatoi v. Government of Sindh 1998 PLC (C.S.) 344, which we are bound to follow. The second important and most disturbing aspect of the case is that once the recommendations of the Commission were available with the Department way back in June, 2006, an appropriate order in terms thereof or rejecting them for valid and proper reasons ought to have been passed within a reasonable time. Any authority endowed with the performance of public duties cannot neglect to perform its duties indefinitely as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Chairman Regional Transport Authority v. Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company PLD 1991 SC 14, where it was held that a public duty must be (sic) Commission would have been reasonable but there seems absolutely no justification for delaying the matter for about 15 months which has caused harm not only to the petitioners but even to the cause of education in the whole Province. For the foregoing reasons, we would allow this petition and direct that the decision on a summary be taken within one month from today and in case no decision is effected, all the recommendees would be deemed to have been duly appointed with effect from the date of the expiry of period of one month. Copy of this order be provided to A.A.-G. Abdul Jabbar Lakho. H.B.T./S-94/K Petition allowed.