Metropolitan Corporation

2019 PLC(CS)N 2 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

R. 9-AWest Pakistan Municipal Committees Service Rules, 1969, Rr. 3(3) & 8(2)Metropolitan CorporationAccommodation and Land Department's employees were absorbed in Legal DepartmentPromotionScope

Plea of petitioners was that respondents belonging to Accommodation and Land Department had been absorbed in Legal Department and thereafter employees so absorbed were promoted as Director (Law) for which they were not eligible

Validity

Posts of respondents were not abolished before their absorption in Law Department of Metropolitan Corporation

Respondents belonging to Accommodation and Land Department were accommodated in Law Department and thereafter promoted in the same department without observing legal formalities

Petitioners had been ignored for their promotion and respondents were promoted in their place as per seniority list of Law Department

Respondents had been promoted Director (Law) (BS-19) not in their parent department/cadre but in another department in different cadre i.e. Law Department

Post of Director (Law) could only be filled by promotion from amongst Deputy Director Legal (BS-18) provided he fulfilled the prescribed qualification and experience (i.e. B. A., LL. B, and LL. M. with fifteen years' experience at Bar)

Members of one cadre of service could not be appointed to a post borne on any other cadre of service

Appointment of respondents by way of promotion in Law Department was against basic rule of law in circumstances

Recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee to the extent of respondents had no sanctity

Respondents did not belong to Law Department of the Metropolitan Corporation and they could not be allowed to be absorbed and subsequently promoted in that cadre

Department could not be allowed to absorb any employee to another cadre

Promotion of respondents was not in accordance with law

Criteria for promotion was eligibility and fitness

Promotion would depend upon eligibility, fitness, seniority and availability of vacancy in that cadre

Promotion of respondents was declared nullity in the eyes of law

Competent Authority was directed to consider the case of petitioners for promotion in BPS-19 in accordance with law if they fulfilled the criteria for the post of Director Legal

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

2012 PLD 208 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S.25Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionMetropolitan Corporation

Petitioner, a government contractor, contended that contract for collection of parking fees had been continuously and illegally awarded to the respondent by the Metropolitan Corporation without inviting tenders and that the respondent was a chronic defaulter in dues payable to the Corporation

Respondent contended that it had a valid agreement with the Metropolitan Corporation and the Chief Minister had waived certain amount payable to the Corporation that had accrued before the execution of the agreement

Validity

Before granting collection rights for parking to the respondent, public bids were not invited, and the Metropolitan Corporation should have, after publication in prominent local newspapers, awarded the contract to the highest bidder

No legal provision was shown under which the Chief Minister could waive public dues

Public monies could not be waived without a law permitting it

Money of the Metropolitan Corporation was to be spent for the public and should have been jealously guarded

Metropolitan Corporation was statutory body governed by its own laws and rules and no powers had been bestowed upon the Chief Minister to waive the amount due to the Corporation

High Court directed the Corporation to immediately invite bids for the auction of the parking fee collection rights and award the same to the highest bidder

Constitutional petition, was allowed in circumstances.