1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

This order shall dispose of the instant Writ Petition No. 577 of 1998/BWP and Writ Petitions Nos. 578, 579, 580, 581 and 582 of 1998/BWP as the question involved in these writ petitions is the same.

2. The petitioners, through these Constitutional petitions, sought quashment of the show-cause notices dated 3-2-1998 being illegal, mala fide and without jurisdiction.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were duly appointed in BS-1 after the recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee and, therefore, the issuance of show-cause notices to them that their appointments were made against the recruitment policy was a mala fide act.

4. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the writ petitions were premature as only an enquiry was being held as the appointments of the petitioners were made against the Government policy and their subsequent regularisation was also without processing under the recruitment policy.

5. To enquire about the alleged illegal or irregular appointments is the right of the Government being the employer. The petitioners have only been served with show-cause notices so far and no final decision about the genuineness or otherwise of their appointments have been made. In the case of Abdul Wahab Khan v. Government of the Punjab and 3 others (PLD 1989 SC 508), the writ petition challenging the appointment of an unauthorised officer in a departmental cases was found to be not maintainable by the High Court and then by a Division Bench in the Intra-Court Appeal. The Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the apex Court with the following observations:-- "One of the conditions being that the order impugned before the Tribunal should be such which is appealable in accordance with the relevant Service Tribunals Act. But the order impugned before the High Court vis-a-vis the stage at which it has been passed, is not appealable, the petitioner would have to wait till such an order is passed against him which is appealable before the Tribunal." And further:-- "With these observations, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Before closing, it needs to be observed that the bar of jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters, contained in Article 212 of the Constitution, has also been spelled out by this Court in a recent derision in the case of S.P., Lahore v. Muhammad Latif, A.S.-I. (Civil Appeal No. 677 of 1984, decided on 19-4-1988) PLD 1988 SC 387."

6. The petitioners are admittedly civil servants. No adverse order has so far been passed. They must face the show-cause notices or a resultant I enquiry, if any, and thereafter, they can seek their remedy in accordance with law. All these petitions are dismissed in limine being premature. A.A./S-205/L Petitions dismissed.