SCMR 2005

2005 PLP 1267 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.3458-L of 2001, decided on 26th February, 2003.
Honorable Judges
Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2005 PLP 1267 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ
Parties MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents
Primary Law (a) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1267 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: (a) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1267 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1267 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(a) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) (b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)

Representation

  • S.K.M. Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing; 26th February, 2003.

Headnotes / Summary

(On appeal from the judgment dated 1-10-2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No.429 of 1998).

S. 4

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)

Punjab Health, Department (Medical and Dental Teaching posts) Service Rules, 1979

Appointment as Assistant Professor (Biochemistry)

Qualification

Grievance of civil servant was that despite having qualification of M.Sc. (Hons) Chemistry with experience of Research and Specialization in Biochemistry, he was not appointed as Assistant Professor (Biochemistry)

Appeal before Service Tribunal was dismissed

Validity

By change in service rules made in year, 1988, non-medical personnel were no longer eligible for the post of Assistant Professor (Biochemistry) and were therefore, not considered for appointment

Civil servant although acquired his M.Phil (Biochemistry) in year, 1989 but he lacked the requisite basic qualification of M.B.,B.S.

Civil servant could not insist for appointment to a post for which he was no longer qualified

Judgment passed by Service Tribunal did not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by Supreme Court

No substantial question of law of public importance was involved in the case as envisaged by Art.212(3) of the Constitution

Leave to appeal was refused.

S. 4

Appeal

Maintainability

Pre-conditions

Order of departmental authority is sine qua non for invoking appellate jurisdiction of Service Tribunal under S.4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

Judgment & Decree

FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.

This petition is directed against the judgment, dated 1-10-2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No.429 of 1998.

2. In the year 1976, the Government of the Punjab invited, through press publication, applications for appointment to the posts of `Assistant Professors (Biochemistry)' on ad hoc/contract basis, from the candidates. The petitioner possessed the qualification of M.Sc. (Hons.) Chemistry with experience of research and specialization in Biochemistry.

3. The petitioner claimed as having been selected on 29-1-1976 for the said post by a Selection Committee, along with other candidates. However, he was not appointed as such by the competent authority. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, after making representations to the Government, which was dismissed by the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, dated 1-10-2001.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that at the time of selection in 1976 the petitioner was duly qualified for appointment as Assistant Professor (Biochemistry) in the Health Department. The petitioner also acquired the higher qualification of M.Phil in Biochemistry in the year 1989. It was next contended that the amendment in the relevant rules subsequently made by the Government could not operate to undo the selection of the . petitioner which had been duly made by the appropriate Selection Committee. It was lastly contended that the Chief Minister of the Punjab had also approved the appointment of the petitioner to give effect to the selection and that the Tribunal took an erroneous view of the matter in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the impugned judgment and documents placed on record. We find that the post of Assistant Professor (Biochemistry), for which the petitioner had applied in 1976 was transitory in nature which was required to be filled on ad hoc/contract basis. The Service Rules were changed in January, 1988 whereby the non-medical personnel were no longer eligible for the post of Assistant Professor (Biochemistry) and were, therefore, not considered for appointment. The petitioner although acquired his M. Phil (Biochemistry) in 1989 but he lacked the requisite basic qualification of M.B.,B.S. Therefore, he could not be appointed to one of the posts of Assistant Professor (Biochemistry) under the Punjab Health Department (Medical and Dental Teaching posts) Service Rules, 1979, as amended, which were required to be filled only by initial recruitment through the Punjab Public Service Commission. The Tribunal justifiably took the view that other persons junior to him were appointed as Assistant Professors on regular basis by initial recruitment on the recommendations of the Punjab Public Service Commission. It was too late in the day for the petitioner to insist for offer of appointment to a post for which he was no longer qualified. The same must also have been filled on regular basis in the meantime. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity so as to warrant interference by this Court. No substantial question of law of public importance is involved in this case as envisaged by Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Even otherwise the petitioner did not call in question any order of the departmental authority before the Tribunal which was a sine qua non for invoking the Appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. This is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.

6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find. any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. M.H./M-822/S Petition dismissed.