Eligibility for appointment

2023 PLC(CS) 1291 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Appointment to advertised postScopeEligibility for appointmentScope

Petitioners, in response to advertisement for recruitment of Primary School Teachers on contract basis, applied for the same and appeared in Written Examination, whereafter being purportedly successful candidates, they appeared in interview, whereafter they were issued Offer Letters subject to their Medical Fitness being certified by an authorized Medical Officer

Contention of petitioners was that the doctor refused to take Medical Test and addressed a letter to the department for issuance of fresh letters on the ground that time mentioned in the Offer Letters had already lapsed

Argument of department was that the petitioners had failed to pass the written test with minimum 60% marks, hence, none of them were eligible for the post they had applied for

Validity

None of the petitioners had secured 60% or more marks and thus, did not fulfill the criteria as laid down in the Recruitment Policy

Constitutional petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 PLC 118 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Appointment to advertised postEligibility for appointmentScope

Where a person lacked basic qualification to be appointed, any time spent in rendering the service would not cure the defect in his appointment, especially when there were other contestants available for the said post who could not be appointed solely for the reason that the petitioner was selected for the appointment

Lack of basic qualification or failure to meet the eligibility criteria was a defect which could not be cured by attaining said qualification or higher qualification subsequently, unless the same was permitted by the statute, rules, regulations, policy decision or the advertisement through which applications for appointment were invited.

2021 PLC 118 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Appointment to advertised postEligibility for appointmentScope

Where basic appointment order is issued without lawful authority then superstructure built thereupon would fall on the ground automatically.

2021 PLC 118 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Appointment to advertised postEligibility for appointmentTermination of contractual servicesScope

Advertisement in newspaper for appointment of the post to the post of driver was issued, in which required qualification for the post of driver was middle pass and holder of LTV driving licence with 2 years experience on the closing date

Although, the petitioner applied for the said post but he did not possess any LTV driving licence, which was subsequently issued to him and was appointed

During subsistence of the contract, a contestant challenged the appointment of petitioner by filing a complaint before the Ombudsman by claiming that the petitioner on the date of appointment lacked the requisite qualification, who referred the matter to the department and consequently due to lack of driving experience his services were terminated

Recording of any evidence for holding regular enquiry did not exist in the matter as there was no factual controversy requiring resolution and determination in view of the fact that the petitioner had neither raised any triable issue nor claimed to have possessed LTV driving licence prior to the closing date of the filing of application

Constitutional petition, being devoid of force, was dismissed.

2020 PLC(CS) 790 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Eligibility for appointmentScope

Petitioner filed application before the Chairman, District Recruitment Committee, for being accommodated on the seat lying vacant in government school reserved for the minority quota

Application of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the minority quota was liable to be filled up under the new policy

Validity

Clause 16(h) of the Contract Policy 2016-2017 provided that in case a seat reserved for minority quota was not filled up on account of non-availability of suitable candidate, the same would be available to other candidates on open merit list

High Court observed that as soon as the vacancy opened on account of non-availability of the candidate under the minority quota right came to be vested in the next candidate available on the open merit list, which right could not be denied on the ground that the seats would be filled up under the next recruitment policy

Constitutional petition was allowed, order passed by Authority was set aside and it was directed to process the case of petitioner for her appointment to the said post, if she was otherwise eligible.

2013 SCMR 363 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

R. 17West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S. 8Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLVII, R. 1LambardarEligibility for appointmentScope

Candidate for the post of Lambardar not qualifying for the same on the cut-off date set-out for applying to the post, but attaining the threshold of eligibility before passing of appointment order by the competent authority/Deputy District Officer (Revenue) (DDOR)

Petitioner applied for the post of Lambardar during his service as a Government servant, however since his service was an impediment to his appointment to the post, therefore, he retired from Government service before the matter of appointment was finally decided by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) (DDOR)

Deputy District Officer (Revenue) appointed respondent to the post of Lambardar as he was considered to be better than other candidates including the petitioner, however no specific comparison of qualifications was made

Appeals filed by petitioner before Executive District Officer (Revenue) and Board of Revenue (Board) respectively were also dismissed, however review petition filed by petitioner before the Board was accepted and after drawing comparisons between qualification of petitioner and respondent, petitioner was appointed to the post of Lambardar

Constitutional petition filed by respondent before High Court against review order of Board was accepted and it was held that no case for review was made out within the parameters of S.8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957

Contention on behalf of respondent was that petitioner was not qualified for the post of Lambardar as date of filing of application by a candidate was relevant for considering his eligibility or ineligibility for the post and not any subsequent event

Validity

Relevance and importance of the date for applying to the post (Lambardar) was primarily meant to ascertain as to who were the persons interested in the job, so that they could come forward and apply for the same by a given date

Candidate who did not cross the threshold of qualification or where there was an impediment in his way at the date of applying for appointment, but crossed the threshold or removed the hurdle in his way while the matter was being processed and scrutinized and before final decision was taken by the competent forum, such candidate/applicant, notwithstanding the ineligibility on the date of applying should be considered by the revenue authorities for the post/assignment

Petitioner, being a Government servant, applied within the given time, and after knowing that his Government service was an impediment to his appointment to the post, he sacrificed his Government job and sought early retirement, and all of this was done before any final order of appointment could be passed by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) (DDOR)

Petitioner had become eligible for consideration in such circumstances, but he was discarded by the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) (DDOR) without assigning any good reasons or comparison of his qualifications with the respondent

Petitioner was also illegally ignored by Executive District Officer (Revenue) and Board of Revenue (Board), which subsequently reviewed its order in terms of S.8 of West Pakistan Board of Revenue Act, 1957, read with O. XLVII, R.1, C.P.C.

High Court should have not interfered with the review order passed by the Board, especially when it was visible on the record that the petitioner in all respects, such as, land holding, education, antecedents etc. was more suitable for the job than the respondent

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal by Supreme Court and allowed, impugned order of High Court was set aside and the review order passed by the Board was upheld.