| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3641 2025 SLD 3641 = 2025 SHC 1520 |
CP No D-1450 of 2017
Justice Mohammad Karim Khan Agha Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
through Mr. Talha Abbasi, advocate. Mr. Ali Asadullah Bullo advocate
(Khalid Ahmed Bablani v. Federation of Pakistan & others)
Law:
Section:
Summary
The petitioner challenged the impugned order dated 07-02-2017, claiming it was illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, violating natural justice by wrongly placing Respondent No. 4 senior despite petitioner’s older age and earlier joining date. Both parties had applied for the same Deputy Director (Electronics) post in 2007 but were ultimately appointed to different unadvertised Deputy Director positions on different dates. The court found that since neither were appointed to the advertised Electronics post and instead held unadvertised posts, the seniority claims on these posts were irrelevant. The court held the appointments conflicted with recruitment rules and directed the department either to regularize both positions with proper seniority or re-advertise the posts. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Core Points
- Petitioner and Respondent No. 4 applied for Deputy Director (Electronics) in 2007 but were appointed to different unadvertised posts on different joining dates.
- Petitioner claimed seniority based on older age and earlier joining date under 1993 Rules.
- Respondent No. 4 claimed seniority based on selection as principal candidate for Electronics post, though neither held it.
- Departmental Selection Committee (DSC) minutes and appointments were made for posts not advertised, violating recruitment rules.
- Earlier seniority lists favored Petitioner; later orders declared Respondent No. 4 senior without proper hearing, raising fairness concerns.
- Court found both appointments irregular and not consistent with recruitment procedures.
- Court referred to Supreme Court ruling in Sarosh Haider vs Muhammad Javed Chundrigar (PLD 2014 SC 338) advocating regularization or fresh advertisement.
- Petition was disposed with directions to rectify or re-advertise posts, making current seniority and promotion claims irrelevant.
Law & Sections Table
| Issue | Relevant Law/Section | Description/Applicability |
|---|---|---|
| Seniority dispute between two similarly placed officers | Recruitment Rules of 1993 (Sindh Civil Servants Rules, or applicable service rules) | Governs appointment, seniority, and promotion procedures for civil servants. |
| Appointment to unadvertised posts | Principle of natural justice and service law | Appointments to posts not advertised violate fair recruitment principles. |
| Regularization or fresh advertisement requirement | Supreme Court Judgment PLD 2014 SC 338 (Sarosh Haider vs Muhammad Javed Chundrigar) | Directs fair and legal appointment processes; regularizes or re-advertises posts if appointments are irregular. |
| Violation of natural justice and fairness | Constitutional Articles (e.g., Art. 4, 10-A, 14) | Right to fair trial and due process in administrative decisions. |
| Official action without notice or hearing | Administrative law principles and service jurisprudence | Ensures decisions affecting rights are taken after a proper hearing. |
O R D E R