2004 P (PLP)

Minimum qualifications /Experience prescribed initial recruitment or promotion of the post. Method appointment for /promotion 1 Deputy Ranger Grade‑5) ‑‑‑‑‑ By promotion from amongst members of the Service holding post of. Foresters on merit with particular reference to fitness for higher responsibilities.

2. Foresters. (i) Matriculation (i) 759& by initial Recruitment. In (2nd Division) From a recognized University of Board; And Forest (ii) Certificate Forestry from a Recognized Forest School (ii) 25% of the vacancies by promotion from amongst Guards through selection on merit with reference to Fitness for higher responsibilities.

3. Forest Guards (i) Ability read and write Urdu By initial recruitment (ii) Should possess physical measurements prescribed by the Government. Admittedly, the appointment of Deputy Ranger can be made amongst officials by way of promotion and no direct appointment can be made. Thus the very order passed by the then Secretary Forest Department, Government of Balochistan, is in violation of said rule and is without jurisdiction, coram non judice and without legal effect. Reliance may be placed on PLD 1984 SC 75 (Nurul Haq versus Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and another, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, has observed as follows:‑‑ "It follows these provisions that a Cooperative Society is not a corporation set up or established by any law for the time being in force. It is also not an institution set up or established by the Central Government or a Provincial Government or by any law. It becomes a body corporate under section 23 of the Co operative Societies Act on being registered under section 10 of that Act. The word Corporation as used in Martial Law Regulation 114 refers to corporations formed by and under special statutes, Central or Provincial, Government department undertakings, government companies under the Companies Act with Special Articles and Memorandum. Establishments, institutions, companies and corporations not falling under the above categories but under some sort of statutory control of the Government or of its functionaries fall outside the definition of Corporation as given in Martial Law Regulation

114. Thus the appellant as an employee or servant of the Frontier Co‑operative Bank was not a person in the service of Corporation and hence not amenable to action under Martial Law Regulation No.

114. It has already been held by this Court in Federation of Pakistan v. Saeed Ahmed PLD 1974 SC 151 that even under Martial Law Regulation 114 actions taken or order made without jurisdiction, mala fide or coram non judice would not be saved in spite of the various validating provisions of the Constitution.". Coming to the objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal was barred by time. Suffice it to observe that the letter dated 2‑12‑1997, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants was rejected, indicates that the appellant was informed about the order, but nothing has been shown that the letter was sent to them in time. On the contrary, the date on the letter shows that the appellants were informed about the decision of the appeal vide letter dated 5‑12‑1990 and thereafter, the instant appeal was filed which is within time. Besides, the order as discussed hereinabove has been passed without any jurisdiction, whereby the vested right accrued to the appellants have been taken away. Thus in such circumstances, even if the question of limitation is involved the same is to be ignored. In this regard, reliance is placed on case‑law Amin Jan v. Secretary to Government of Pakistan and others PLJ 1997 Tr.C. (Services) 139, wherein the Federal Service Tribunal. Islamabad, has observed as follows:‑‑ "It is against the principles of natural justice and fair play to kill the vested right of a civil servant on the altar of limitation. In this regard the learned counsel for the appellant has quoted number of judgment of the Supreme Court in which it has been held that appeal be not dismissed on the ground of limitation when the facts of the case have merits. And we subscribe to that view and condone the delay if at all caused under the circumstances." Thus in view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the appellants are placed senior to respondent No.3. Since the appointment of the respondent No.3 after acceptance of resignation was ab initio, void and against the service rules is without any legal effect. E Thus the case is remanded back to the Secretary Forest Department, Government of Balochistan, to re‑consider the appellant of respondent No.3, whether he has been reinstated in service legally or otherwise.

12. For the foregoing reasons, the orders dated 12‑6‑1991 and 2‑12‑1997, whereby the respondent has been reinstated in service are set aside and the impugned seniority list dated 1‑7‑1997 be corrected, while the names of the appellants be placed at proper place. Further, the name of respondent No.3 be deleted from the same. The application submitted by respondent No.3, for reinstatement in service, would be deemed pending before the Secretary Forest Department, who shall dispose of the same in accordance with law. Parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./19/QST Appeal allowed.