2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑S.4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Illegal appointment‑‑‑Civil servant at the time of appointment was at serial No. 42 of the merit list while only ten vacancies were available‑‑‑Civil servant could not have been appointed but he manoeuvred his appointment by exerting political influence and with the connivance of corrupt elements of the Education Department‑‑ Authorities terminated the services of the civil servant and the order passed by the authorities was maintained by Service Tribunal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant could not have been appointed when he was at serial No.42 of the merit list against ten available vacancies‑‑‑Civil servant and usurped the rights of those who secured better merit position‑‑‑No injustice had been done to the civil servant and the conclusion arrived at by the Service Tribunal being well based did not warrant any interference‑‑No question of law of public importance was involved in the matter‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused. Muhammad Ozair Chughtai, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing: 28th April, 2003. JAVED IQBAL, J.‑‑‑Pursuant to disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 on account of procuring the appointment of SV teacher in violation of prescribed procedure and merit his services were terminated vide order dated 9‑12‑1996. After exhausting the departmental remedies the petitioner approached the learned Service Tribunal by means of appeal which has been rejected.

2. It is mainly contended that the petitioner fulfils the requisite qualifications being, MA and more so, that the appointment was Made by the Competent Authority strictly in accordance with law and prescribed procedure which has altogether been ignored by the learned Service Tribunal resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. It is also pointed out that various irregular appointments were regularized but the petitioner has been discriminated and dismissed from service without any lawful justification.

3. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of the petitioner in the light of record made available and perused the judgment impugned. It transpired from scrutiny of the record that in the year 1993, ten vacancies of SV teachers were available and after completion of formalities ten candidates were appointed whereas the petitioner was shown at Sr. No.42 of the merit list who could not have been appointed. The petitioner, however, manoeuvred his appointment by exerting political influence and with the connivance of corrupt elements of the Education Department. There could be no other inference except that his appointment was made in violation of merit. The learned Advocate Supreme Court could not answer the question that as to how the petitioner could have been appointed when admittedly he was at Sr. No‑42 of the merit list against ten available vacancies. The petitioner has thus usurped the rights of those who secured better merit position. The selection of the petitioner was in violation of the prescribed procedure and against the merit. No injustice whatsoever has been done. The conclusion as arrived at by learned Service Tribunal being well based does not warrant any interference and besides that no question of law of public importance is involved in the matter on the basis whereof leave to appeal could be granted. The petition being merit less is dismissed and leave refused. M. H. /S‑0/SC Petition dismissed