1993 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed by 21 petitioners who claim to be duly selected and appointed Patwaris, by the Sub‑Division Recruitment Committee, on 11th December, 1990. They feel aggrieved of the orders passed by the Commissioner, Gujranwala Division, Gujranwala, whereby District Collector had been asked to dispensed with the services of the petitioners on the ground that their recruitment was made despite the ban imposed by the Provincial Government on fresh recruitments.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners firstly contended that the ban imposed by the Government has no applicability so far as the appointment of Patwaris is concerned, which is governed by the special procedure provided in Chapter 3 of the Land Record Manual. Second contention of the learned counsel was that the impugned order is contrary to principles of natural justice, as it was passed at the‑ back of the petitioners, without giving them any opportunity of being heard.

3. It is unnecessary to decide the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners as this petition is liable to succeed on the second ground urged by him. It is not denied by the learned Additional Advocate General that before passing the impugned order, the petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of being heard.

4. From the report submitted by the respondents, it is clear that the services of petitioners were being dispensed with on the ground that they have been recruited during the period of ban imposed by the Provincial Government. The case of the petitioners, on other hand, is that their appointment was made on 11th December, 1990 while the ban was imposed on 12th December, 1990 and, therefore, the appointment was not violative of the ban. In the report submitted by respondent No.2, there are also allegations about fabrication of record.

5. In these circumstances, it is all the more necessary for the respondents to have held an enquiry into the matter and decide the question as to whether or not the appointment of the petitioners was violative of any rules/instructions and if so with what effect. After providing them an opportunity of being heard. The learned Additional Advocate‑General is not in a position to rebut this contention. In view of what has been stated above, this petition is allowed, impugned orders, dated 9th July, 1992 and 19th July, 1992, are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The case is remitted to the Collector/Assistant Collector, Pasrur, for a decision afresh, after allowing an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. No orders as to costs. H.B.T./M‑1083/L Petition allowed.