2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Syed SIKANDAR ALI SHAH Versus AUDITOR‑GENERAL OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and others
| Citation | 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Ayub Khan and |
| Parties | Syed SIKANDAR ALI SHAH Versus AUDITOR‑GENERAL OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and others |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules, 1973‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Muhammad Ayub Khan and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Syed SIKANDAR ALI SHAH Versus AUDITOR‑GENERAL OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Niaz Ahmed Khan, Standing Counsel for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
- Nawaz for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 27th July, 2000.
- MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant and Raja Haq Nawaz, Advocate, for respondent No.4 are present and have been heard and record perused while Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, Standing Counsel, for respondents Nos. 1 to 3 was present in the. morning but with permission of the Court, had left to attend other judicial matters pending before the High Court Sindh and while leaving the Court stated at the bar that he would rely on the parawise comments having already been filed and are available on the file.
- 8. Now coming to the merits of the appeal, it was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 (i.e. PSO) that the appellant was totally incompetent but was inducted as Management Trainee due to political interference of the then Government, i.e. on the approach of one Mr. Anwar Saifullah, the then Federal Minister and the Deputy Speaker, National Assembly. Respondent No.4 has annexed to the parawise comments copies of the Interview Rating Reports wherein the following remarks were recorded by the Interviewers:‑‑
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑R.6(2)‑‑‑Termination of lien‑‑‑Civil servant while posted as Senior Auditor under Directorate of Commercial Audit had himself adopted service under a Company which was an autonomous body under Federal Government‑‑‑Application of civil servant for retention of his lien under parent organization (Directorate of Commercial Audit) could not be accepted in view of provisions of R.6(2), Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules, 1973 which had provided that civil servant would cease to hold lien against a post if he would take up appointment on selection in an autonomous body. 1987 PLC (C.S.) 508 and 1992 SCMR 1652 ref. (b) Civil service‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑ Termination of service‑‑‑Services of civil servant were terminated on ground that not. only he was totally incompetent for post to which he was posted, but he was inducted due to political interference‑‑‑Services of civil servant were rightly terminated because political interference not only disturbs normal working of Government organization but also cultivates political culture which is not in public interest and frequent political interference adversely affects smooth functioning of Government organizations, public interest and merits as well. 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1089 and 1998 PLC (C.S.) 832 ref. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
Remarks by the Interviewer (Ms. SALMA)
9. In this report the appellant was rated as "Average". In the first column, i.e. "appearance" while in the column of "Experience in Work applied for" he was rated as: "8 years experience as Senior Auditor in Government Department" whereas in all of the rest columns i.e. "Speech, Reasoning and Judgment. Poise and Maturity and Potential" he has been assessed as "Poor". In the remaining two columns the remarks recorded were as follows:‑‑ "Weakness for this Job. Being MA (Ecos.) could not define what Economic is, could not answer any question also very poor in general knowledge." "General Comments Not fit for any job. Totally blank, already serving as Senior Auditor for the last 8 years. " Remarks by the Interviewer (MR. SOHAIL AHMAD)
10. The appellant was assessed by this Interviewer as "Poor" in almost all the columns except Column No. 1 i.e. "appearance" where he was rated as "Average". The remarks in the other columns are as under:‑‑ "Weakness for this Job. Knows nothing about any subject. Was not able to answer a single question. " "General Comments. Serving in BPS‑15 as a Senior Auditor. Not fit even for a non mgl job."
11. In his report the Interviewer has rated the appellant as "Average" in three columns i.e. "appearance", "Speech" and "Poise and Maturity" and assessed him "Nil" in one column. i.e. "Experience in Work applied for" whereas the other two columns namely, "Reasoning and Judgment" and "Potential" the appellant was assessed as "Poor". The report regarding other three columns read: "Strength for this Job. Experience of service in Audit Department." "Weakness for this Job. Could not answer a single question on any subject i.e. Economics, Statistics, Agricultural Economics." "General Comments Totally Blank. Nil Potential." All the three Interviewers have, however, not recommended him for employment.
12. Pursuant to the aforesaid discussion and the legal requirements having not been fulfilled and also lacking competence, the appellant appears to have been inducted through political approach as such the relief, as claimed, cannot be extended to him. It is further to state that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan had taken a serious view in its judgment reported as 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1089 and the Lahore High Court in 1998 PLC (C.S.) 832 regarding the political interference in service matters so much so that it was observed that the politicians found involved in the affairs of the civil servants could be declared disqualified. The spirit behind this is that the political interference not only disturbs the normal working. of the Governmental organizations but also cultivates political cultures which does not lie in the public interest and frequent political interference adversely affect the smooth functioning of the various Governmental organizations, public interest and the merits as well. Politician have got a definite set of activities as per the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the various enactments, made thereunder.
13. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, this appeals fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to been their own costs.
14. However, copies of this judgment shall be sent to the appellant, respondents and all other concerned as required under rule 21(1) of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974. H.B.T./146/FST Appeal dismissed