Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 640 of 1980, heard on 2nd September, 1982.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑Writ jurisdiction‑Civil servant serving in higher pay scale‑Services terminated and appointment made in lower pay scale ---Writ jurisdiction exercised by High Court‑Agriculture Officer already serving in Grade‑17‑Government notification issued there after that those possessing M.Sc. qualifications only would be recruit ed in Grade‑17 and those with qualifications of B.Sc. in Grade‑16 Petitioners B.Sc. already serving in Grade‑l7‑Services terminated and fresh appointment made in Grade‑16‑‑Such action, held, illegal and unlawful.

Qazi Atiqur Rehman assisted by Mian Muhammad Ashfaq for Petitioners.

Inayat Elahi Khan, A.‑G. (N.‑W.F.P.) for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing : 2nd September, 1981.

In this writ petition, the petitioners have called in question Notification No. S.O.G. .(E) A D 11 (2) 375/78, Vol. II dated 1st June, 1980, issued by the N.‑W.F.P. Government in the Agriculture, Forest and Co‑operative Department Respondent No. 1 herein) whereby the services of the petition ers in Scale No. 17 as Agriculture Officers/Assistant Research Officers were terminated and they were re‑employed in Scale No. 16 with effect from 27‑12‑1979.

For the purposes of disposal of this petition, it is sufficient to state that the petitioners were already in service in the Department of Agriculture in Scale No. 17 as Agriculture Officers/Assistant Research Officers prior to 1st May, 1977, when the impugned notification dated 1st June, 1980, was issued. The grievance of the petitioners is that the termination of their services in Scale No. 17 and their placement or for that matter re‑employ ment in Scale No. 16 has no legal basis.

We have gone through the impugned notification, but we have not been able to find any justification given therein for terminating the services of the petitioners and their re‑employment in Scale No. 16. In order to clear ourselves as to what was the modus operandi for the impugned action against the petitioners, we examined Shaheeruddin Assistant and Niamat Shah Section Officer of the Agriculture Department. In their statement they referred us to Notification No. FD (SRI) 2‑51/72‑3 dated 2nd March, 1978, issued by the Finance Department, N.‑W.F.P., filed alongwith the written statement of respondent No. 1. Their statement was that according to para. 5 of the above notification, all Agriculture Officers/Assistant Research Officers appointed on 1st May, 1977, or thereafter and who possessed B.Sc. Agriculture Degree in Agriculture Sector were entitled to Scale No. 16. In other words, they tried to convey that on the basis of para. 5 in question, the petitioners were to be re‑employed in Scale No 16. When asked whether the paragraph is clear on the point, they submitted that they cannot say and leave the matter for the interpretation of the Court.

It will be proper to produce paragraph 5 of Notification No. FD (SRI) 2‑51/72‑III, dated 2nd March, 1978, which is to the following effect :‑

"5. Minimum qualifications for initial recruitment to all the above posts, w. e. f. 1‑5‑1977, in the Agriculture Sector will be M. Sc. (Agriculture) and in the Animal Husbandry 'Sector M. Sc. (AH)/ D.V.M. All those appointed against the above posts on 1‑5‑1977 and thereafter and who possessed B..Sc. (Agriculture) degree in Agriculture Sector and B. Sc. (A. H.) degree in Animal Husbandry Sector will be entitled to Grade‑16. They will be eligible for Grade‑17 and for further promotion only after acquiring the qualification of M. Sc. (Agriculture) or M. Sc. (A. H.)/D.V.M. in the respective sectors."

We have formed the clear impression that this paragraph does not apply to the case of the petitioners. They were already in Scale No. 17 prior to 1‑5‑1977. Therefore, their recruitment cannot be made initial recruitment, the more so as it is nowhere provided in the Notification that officers already in Scale No. 17 for the purpose of this notification will have to be reverted to Scale No. 16 or their services will have to be termi nated and they will be re‑employed in Scale No. 16.

On the view of the matter that we take, we hold that the termination of services of the petitioners in Scale No. 17 as Agriculture Officers/Assistant Research Officers and their re‑employment in Scale No. 16 is illegal and of no lawful authority. This writ petition is, therefore, allowed as prayed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Appeal 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.