1999 PLP 2473 (SCMR)

SH. RIAZ AHMED, J.

The Collector of Customs, Lahore seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 22-1-1996 whereby writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 calling in question his termination from service was accepted and the High Court directed that the respondent shall be deemed to continue in service.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent submitted an application to the Prime Minister of Pakistan for appointment against the post of Inspector Customs. On 21-5-1989 through Placement Bureau the application reached the Chairman, Central Board of Revenue with the recommendation that the respondent may be appointed against one of the existing vacancies. Vide order dated`25-7-1989 the respondent was appointed as Inspector Customs. Vide order dated 23-10-1989 the service of the respondent were determinated. The respondent then filed writ petition and it was contended that after clearing medical tests and he undertook requisite training and completed the same on 10-10-1989. It was contended that the services of the respondent were terminated on the asking of Mr. Shahadat Khan Baloch, M.N.A. from Tandlianwala, who wanted that in place of the respondent, Saeed Asad of Faisalabad should be appointed as Customs Inspector. To substantiate this contention the relevant letter issued by Maj. General (Retd) Nasirullah Khan Babar, Special Assistant to the Prime Minister was placed on the record. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court treating the termination as mala fide void ab initio and having been done on considerations other than legal, accepted the writ petition. The learned Judge of the Lahore High Court in fact followed the judgment of the Court in similar other cases in which the service of the various employees were terminated on political grounds. The learned Judge also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Indian Supreme Court reported as Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi etc. v. State of U.P. and others (1991 Supreme Court Cases 212).

3. In support of this petition, it has been vehemently argued that the appointment of the respondent took place without any examination and interview and the High Court had erred in interfering with the termination of the services of the respondent on account of the bar of jurisdiction contained in Article 212 of the Constitution and only the Federal Service Tribunal had the jurisdiction to consider the enforcement of such terms and conditions. It was also submitted that the services of the respondent were temporary in nature and could be dispensed with without assigning any reason and furthermore, as against 313 posts of the Inspectors in the Collectorate, 12 Inspectors were excess of this number.

4. Considering all these facts, on the question of jurisdiction of the High Court we are of the view that leave should be granted to consider as to whether Constitutional jurisdiction could be exercised by the High Court although the same had been barred under the Constitution. Order accordingly. Meanwhile, the respondents shall continue to perform their duties. H.B.T./C-35/S Leave to appeal granted.