Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 6 of 1983, decided on 13th April, 1983.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Service Tribunal, Punjab, Lahore, dated 3rd November, 1982 in Appeal No. 45/1519 of 1982).

----Art. 185 (3)‑West Pakistan Irrigation. Department Draftsmen's Service Rules, 1962, r. 7‑Letter proposing provisional appointment of petitioner itself being subject to approval of Government with regard to qualification possessed by petitioner with sufficient warning that services were liable to be terminated with no claim to post being offered‑Government admittedly declining to accord approval to appointment of petitioner having been not found to fulfil necessary qualification‑‑Order of Service Tribunal justifying termination of service of petitioner, held, unexceptionable in circumstances‑Petition ‑for leave to appeal dismissed.‑[Civil service].

Riaz Anwar, Advocate and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on -Record for Petitioners.

M. M. Samad, Advocate and Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 13th April, 1983.

This petition for special leave is from the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 3‑11‑1982.

The petitioner, who had secured a certificate for the session 1967‑68 from the Government School of Engineering and Polytechnic Institute, Rasool, was appointed to the post of draftsman in Sargodha region of Irrigation Department in N.P.S.‑11 on 21‑5‑1980. Thereafter, certain posts of draftsmen became available in the office of Director, Floods, Punjab, Lahore and the petitioner sought transfer to one of the posts through proper channel. This was not done and meanwhile the said two posts were advertised by the respondent No. 2 for initial appointment. The petitioner, therefore, applied for his appointment against one of the said posts through the Chief Engineer Sargodha and his application was forwarded by the Chief Engineer, on 20‑6‑1981. The Chief Engineer, Floods, respondent No. 2 thereupon made a reference to the Secretary, Board of Technical Education enquiring about the value of the certificate issued to the petitioner by the Government School of Engineering and Polytechnic. The Secretary of the Board in his reply to the said letter, dated 22‑10‑1981 informed the respondent No. 2 that the Board had no charter to determine the suitability of any qualification for a particular candidate for a job and it was, therefore, for the appointing authorities to take decision at their own level. The letter further' stated "that the Rasul certificate in civil draftsmanship of 850 hours of Session of 1966‑67 contained sufficient material to enable the holder of the Certificate to work as Draftsman in the Government or Private Organization". The petitioner was selected for appointment as draftsman provisionally in the Hyderology Directorate of the Irrigation and Power Department, Punjab, Lahore and such intimation was conveyed to him, on 27‑10‑1981.

In the letter of offer of appointment issued to the petitioner, dated 28‑10‑1981 it was specifically mentioned that his appointment was subject to clearance from the Government as regards his academic qualifications and in case the Government did not agree his services were liable to be terminated with no claim whatsoever to the post. By a letter dated 21‑11‑1.981 the Director,. Floods, sought necessary clearance from the Government of Punjab stating that the petitioner had been offered a post of draftsman on provisional basis and the advice of the Government may be conveyed for the determination as to whether he was qualified with one year's course to be recruited as civil dratsman. The Government of Punjab, however, by its letter, dated 17‑1‑1982 informed the Directorate that there was little justification for appointment of the petitioner as draftsman as the petitioner did not fulfil the requisite qualifications.

The petitioner filed an appeal to challenge the said order and his resultant termination of his services before the Service Tribunal, Punjab, which was dismissed as per impugned judgment.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had the requisite qualification as provided in rule 7 of the West Pakistan, Irrigation Department Draftsmen's Service Rules, 1962, and. as such the order terminating his service on the ground of lack of qualification was illegal and the said rule was not properly considered by the learned Tribunal. The relevant rule reads as under:

"7. Qualifications.‑(I) No person shall be appointed to a post in the service by initial recruitment unless he has passed the Matriculation Examination from a recognised University or Board and has passed the Draftsmen's Examination or Overseers Examination from Government Engineering School, Rasul or holds a diploma Engineering from a recognised Institute.

(2) . . . . . . . ..

The above rule requires passing of draftsmen's examination from Govern ment Engineering School, Rasul. The certificate issued to the petitioner clearly indicates that he had just completed a course of civil draftsmanship. The said certificate was issued by the school itself and not by the Punjab Board of Technical Education. Lahore. Even in the letter issued by the Secretary, Punjab, Technical Education, Lahore, dated 22‑10‑1981 which was strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was not stated that the petitioner had passed any examination. On the contrary it was stated that the certificate issued to him by the Engineering school Rasul for the session 1966‑67 just provided sufficient material to work us draftsman. It may be mentioned here that the certificate issued to the petitioner was for session 1967‑68 and not for the session 1966‑67 as mentioned in the letter of the Board.

The letter proposing the appointment of the petitioner itself was subject to the approval of the Government with regard to the qualification possessed by the petitioner and admittedly the Government, as mentioned above, had declined to accord approval to the appointment of the petitioner as he was not found to fulfil necessary qualification. The offer of appointment of the petitioner was also provisional and contained sufficient warning e that his services were liable to be terminated with no claim to the post.

For the reasons mentioned above, the order passed by the learned Service Tribunal is unexceptionable and no case has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed accordingly.

M. Z. M.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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