| Citation(s) |
| 2026 SLG 4653 = 2026 SLD 4653 = 2026 PLJ 85 |
Quetta High Court
C.P. No. 859 of 2025
Presented By: Muhammad Najam-ud-Din Mengal and JJ
Mr. Waseem Kamran, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Additional A.G for Official
Respondents. Mr. Imran Abro, Advocate for Private
Respondents. Date of hearing: 27.11.2025.
HABIBULLAH--Petitioner
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN and others--Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199, 10-A
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973-- ----Art. 199--Advertisement for post of Junior Arabic Teacher (JAT)--Petitioner applied, participated in recruitment process conducted by District Recruitment Committee (DRC) under Recruitment Policy 2024--Declared successful on merit--Appointment order issued--Petitioner joined service and continued with salary and benefits--Subsequently, private respondent filed complaint before Complaint Redressal Cell (CRC)--No show cause notice issued, no inquiry conducted, no opportunity of hearing afforded--CRC, relying upon superseded Recruitment Policy 2013, recommended cancellation--Appointment of petitioner cancelled--Similarly placed 41 candidates retained in service--Petitioner singled out--Selection criteria based on domicile/CNIC ignored--Wrong appointment of respondent against unsanctioned post--Violation of advertisement terms--Action held arbitrary, discriminatory and without lawful authority--Violation of principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem) and Article 10-A of Constitution--Petitioner acquired legitimate expectation and vested right after completion of selection process--Doctrine of promissory estoppel attracted--Cancellation declared illegal, void ab initio and of no legal effect--Petition allowed--Reinstatement ordered with continuity of service and consequential benefits--Selection criteria prescribed in advertisement was held to be binding upon authorities--Where recruitment had to be made strictly on basis of domicile and CNIC address, deviation from such criteria was declared impermissible--Appointment made against a post not duly sanctioned or contrary to prescribed criteria was held to be ex-facie unlawful--Where respondent had been appointed against a post pertaining to another Union Council despite no sanctioned vacancy, such appointment was declared illegal--Recruitment made under a notified policy could not be disturbed by applying a superseded policy--where selection had been conducted under Recruitment Policy 2024, reliance by authorities on earlier 2013 policy for cancellation of appointment was held to be illegal, arbitrary and without lawful authority--Once an appointment had been made pursuant…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register