Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petitions No. D‑1429 and D‑1457 of 1978, decided on 7th August 1979.

---R. 11‑Departmental Selection Committee not existing at time and appointments made under delegated powers by competent authority‑ Such appointments cannot be said to be in violation of any prescribed method of appointment and do not fall within purview of Martial Law Order, 1977 [M. L. A. (Zone C)] No. 55.].

Mr. Muhammad Ali Shaikh for Petitioner.

Usman Ghani Rashid, A.‑G. (Sind) with Abbas Farooqi for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 18th, 19th, 20th, 21st, 25th, 26th, 27th, February; 2nd, 3rd March; 8th, 10th, 24th April; 6th, 15th, 16th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 27th and 29th May 1979.

This judgment will dispose of Constitutional Petitions Nos. D‑1429 and D‑1457/78 as they raise common question and facts of law.

2. In Petition No. D‑1429‑78, the petitioner Muhammad Alam Khoso and in. Petition No. D‑1457/78 the petitioner Muhammad Hassan Dharae were appointed as Sub‑Engineers in Grade 11 on 9th May 1974 and 30th July 1976, respectively on purely temporary basis. Under their letters of appointment, the services of the petitioners were liable to be terminated at any time without any notice or assigning any reason therefor. Under section 11 of the Sind Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfers) Rules, 1974, initial appointments to posts in Grades 1‑15 shall be made on the recommendation of the Departmental Selection Committee after the vacancies in Grades 3 to 15 have been advertised in newspapers. It appears that at the time of the appointment of the petitioners, no Depart mental Selection Committee existed and their appointments were made under. Delegated Powers, by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Sukkur Division. Upon the promulgation of the M. L. O-55, the ad‑hoc appointments of both the petitioners were reviewed under paragraph 3(iii) of Part I by the Divisional Committee, Sukkur Division on 12th September 1978, who after examining their service records did not find them fit for retention in the posts held by them. Accordingly, the Superintending Engineer, Rohri Canal Circle, Hyderabad, gave one week's notice on 18th October 1978, for termina tion of the petitioner's appointments. The petitioners have filed these petitions to challenge their removal from service.

3. The initial appointments of the petitioners were to pasts in Grade II and, under rule 11 of the Sind Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, they were to be made on the recom mendations of the departmental Selection Committee after the vacancies had been advertised in newspapers. It is conceded by the respondents (vide parawise comments received in Petition No. D‑1429‑78 from respect 3) that at the time of their appointments, no departmental Selection Committee existed and therefore, their appointments were made under delegated powers by the Chief Engineer (Irrigation, Sukkur Barrage). Therefore, the appointment of the petitioners by the Chief Engineer under delegated powers cannot be A said to be in violation of any prescribed method of appointment and the cases of the petitioners, therefore, do not fall within the purview of M.L.O. 55. We, therefore, held that the termination of services of the petitioners under M.L.O. 55 or without lawful authority. However, the petitioners held purel temporary posts and it is open to the respondents to terminate their services in accordance with the terms appointment in case the respondents desire to do so.

4. It is not necessary to consider the other submissions of Mr. Muhammad Ali Sheikh, as we have decided to allow these petitions.

5. For the foregoing reasons these petitions are allowed with no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.