1999 PLP 1585 (SCMR)

MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.-Petitioner on retirement from Pakistan Navy was re-employed as Deputy Director, NIPA vide Notification No.58-7/90-E.2, dated 3rd March, 1991. Later, while serving as Director Export Promotion Bureau was transferred by means of Notification No.58/7/90 E.2, dated 13-11-1995 and his services placed at the disposal of Cabinet Division for posting as Secretary, Printing Corporation of Pakistan. On 4-12-1995 he assumed charge of Secretary, PCP (B-19). In pursuance of decision taken by Board of Governors petitioner was confirmed as Secretary, P.C.P. vide Notification No.Admn.15(17)/95-PCP/0377 dated 1-9-1996.

2. Respondent Abdul Shakoor who was serving as Deputy Secretary, P.C.P., feeling aggrieved from petitioner's appointment as Secretary, P.C.P. filed Constitution Petition No. 1391 of 1996 before Rawalpindi Bench of Lahore High Court challenging validity of his appointment on the ground of ineligibility and want of necessary qualifications. Writ of quo warranto was issued by Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench through impugned judgment dated 22-6-1998, whereby petitioner was declared to be ineligible for holding office of the Secretary, P.C. P. Concluding portion of the judgment is reproduced below:-- "For the foregoing reasons I declare that Commander (Retd.) Saeed Ahmed Memon, respondent No.6, is holding the office of the Secretary of Printing Corporation of Pakistan without any authority of law. Consequently, he shall cease to hold the said office. The writ petition is accepted. There shall, however, be no order as to costs." Above decision has been assailed through present petition for leave to appeal.

3. Arguments were addressed at length by Mr. Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court, for petitioner, Maulvi Anwarul Haq, Deputy Attorney-General, and Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, for respondent No. 1.

4. Looking to legal and factual aspects we feel that following questions require consider ration: -- (i) Whether P.C.P. Employees -Service Rules, 1977 framed pursuant upon section 6 of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, shall remain operative for regulating terms and conditions of petitioner's service or other employees of the Corporation; despite the fact that Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, has not been extended to the P.C.P. beyond April, 1995? (ii) Whether grounds on the basis- of which petitioner has been found ineligible and disqualified to hold office of Secretary, P.C,P., through impugned judgment, still subsist and what would be its overall effect? (iii) Whether addition of section 2-A by way of amendment in Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on 10-6-1997 constitutes a bar for invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, specially when controversy primarily related to terms and conditions of service- and amending provisions has been held, to be retrospectively operative? (iv) Whether in the peculiar circumstances and nature of controversy raised between the parties petition for quo warranto was maintainable and interference as regards impugned judgment may not be warranted?

5. We accordingly grant leave to appeal to, inter alia, examine above points, which are of considerable public importance. H.B.T./S-107/S Leave granted.