| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 771 2017 SLD 771 2017 PLC 1033 |
Sindh High Court
C.P. No. D-1574 of 2016, decision & hearing dated: 02-09-2016.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE, ABDUL GHANI SOOMRO, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Malik Naeem Iqbal and Faizan Memon
Respondent(s) by: Abdul Jalil Zubedi, A.A.G. along with Syed Zakir Shah, Special Secretary (Education and Literacy Department) and Abdul Majeed Bhurt, Executive Director, STEDA
C.P. No. D-1574 of 2016, decision & hearing dated: 02-09-2016.
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE, ABDUL GHANI SOOMRO, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Malik Naeem Iqbal and Faizan Memon
Respondent(s) by: Abdul Jalil Zubedi, A.A.G. along with Syed Zakir Shah, Special Secretary (Education and Literacy Department) and Abdul Majeed Bhurt, Executive Director, STEDA
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, JUSTICE ABDUL GHANI SOOMRO, JUSTICE LORETTA IQBAL AND 33 OTHERS
VS
PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 2 OTHERS
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 3
(a) Civil service--- ----Conducting written test after completion of appointment process---Locus poenitentiae, principle of---Applicability---Scope---Department stopped payment of salaries to the petitioners-employees---Contention of employees was that they were appointed after accomplishing due process of selection and that conduct of test after appointment was mala fide of the department---Validity---No condition of written test was accentuated in advertisements for inviting applications and interview letters issued by the authority---Offer for appointment was made on recommendation of Selection Committee with the approval of competent authority on the same terms and conditions---Employees were in service and they had approached the High Court for payment of their salaries---Decision of posterior written test was taken to exasperate and impede the salary claim of employees---Employer had prerogative to take up the issue of misconduct or lack of competence or performance in accordance with law but conducting a test after one year of the appointment was without lawful justification---Selection of employees was made on merits and thereafter appointment offers were issued---No illegality or violation of law had been attributed to the selection process nor it was avowed that Selection Committee played a part beyond or in excess of their mandate---If such practice or tendency was approved, every employer might ask his employee at any belated stage to appear in the written test even after considerable length of his service to show whether at the time of his appointment he was fit or not---Once a right was accrued to a civil servant by appointment letter after complying with all the codal formalities then same could not be taken away on mere assumption, supposition, whims and fancy of any executive functionary---Such right once vested could not be destroyed or withdrawn as legal bar would come into play under the doctrine of locus poenitentiae---Nothing was on record to express any performance issue or lack of competence or misconduct of any individual employee---No lawful justification or cogent reason had been demonstrated to conduct written test when vested right…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492