Appointment of employees appointed on current charge basis was to come to an end on the appointment made on regular basis or on expiry of six months whichever was earlier

Citation Name : 2020 PLC(CS) 107 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
Side Appellant : MUSHTAQ AHMED RAZA
Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ARIF, SENIOR TEACHER
R.10-B(2)---Promotion---Writ petition before High Court by the employee was disposed of with the direction to the department to fill the posts in question according to seniority and promotion quota as per service rules---Validity---Appointment of employees appointed on current charge basis was to come to an end on the appointment made on regular basis or on expiry of six months whichever was earlier---High Court had committed no illegality while disposing of writ petition with a direction to fill the posts while adhering to the seniority and promotion quota---No adverse order had been passed against the petitioners-employees---High Court had issued only direction for filling the posts which was quite in accordance with law---Petitioners had no locus standi to file writ petition, in circumstances---No legal question in the petition, for leave to appeal had been pointed out petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.


Citation Name : 2020 SCMR 90 SUPREME-COURT
Side Appellant : CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL BAORD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD
Side Opponent : Mrs. NAUREEN AHMED TARAR
Rr. 6(2) & 7(4) [as amended on 28-04-2001]---Inter-se seniority amongst probationers after Final Passing Out Examination---Legitimate expectancy, principle of---Scope---Amendment to service rules during an ongoing probationary course affecting substantive right of the probationers---Through an amendment dated 28-04-2001 in the Occupational Groups and Services (Probation, Training and seniority ) Rules, 1990, ('the Rules') the number of attempts availed by a probationer to clear the specialized training examinations was added as one of the criteria for determining seniority ---Constitutionality---seniority in service was a valuable right and probationers had a legitimate expectancy that the probationary service law prevalent at the time when they entered their probation shall remain in force until their confirmation---Principle of legitimate expectancy aimed at enforcing fairness and preventing arbitrariness---Ranking of passing probationers on the basis of the number of their attempts made to clear the prescribed examinations imposed a penal liability through loss of seniority ---Change in law by the amendment in the Rules, caused adverse consequences for the probationers---Such consequences infringed the legitimate expectancy of the serving probationers by altering the legal dispensation under which firstly, their service rights were determined for the future and secondly, for the rules under which the probationers commenced their probationary training---Though procedural in content, the amendment affected a substantive right of the probationers, namely, their seniority in the batch and in this respect by altering an accrued status, the said amendment had retrospective effect---Resultantly it was burdensome to implement the amendment upon the probationers who had already entered their probationary period prior to the enforcement of the said amendment---Additionally one of the examinations envisaged in the Rules, namely, the Specialized Training Programme (STP), could not be held---Such failure made the categorization of the total result on the basis of number of examination attempts to be irrational and lopsided---Circumstances of incomplete examinations to test the probationers and the enforcement of the disputed amendment to an ongoing probationary course, had resulted in harsh and untenable consequences both in law and fact---Supreme Court held that Rules in their (unamended) form as at the commencement of the probationary period in July, 1998 shall remain applicable for reckoning the seniority of the probationers on the completion of their probation, and the Federal Government needed to apply its mind to remove the salient anomalies highlighted by the Service Tribunal that existed in the application and implementation of the Rules.

Related Articles

Appointment of employees appointed on current charge…

Appointment of employees appointed on current charge basis was to come to an end on the appointment…

Superintendent in the subordinate judiciary

Superintendent in the subordinate judiciary

-Civil servant transferred to another department after…

-Civil servant transferred to another department after making a request for mutual transfer with another…

Maxim: Audi alteram partem

Maxim: Audi alteram partem

Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer)…

Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973

Residential Accommodation at Peshawar (Procedure for…

Residential Accommodation at Peshawar (Procedure for Allotment) Rules, 2018

Neither any seniority nor any promotion could be claimed…

Neither any seniority nor any promotion could be claimed or granted without actual length of service…

Whether ad hoc employee, who was switched to contract…

Whether ad hoc employee, who was switched to contract employee and then finally regularized in service…

2019 PLC(CS) 333

2019 PLC(CS) 333

2019 PLC(CS) 83

2019 PLC(CS) 83

Defence Saving Certificates Rules, 1966

Defence Saving Certificates Rules, 1966

PLD 2019 SC 719

PLD 2019 SC 719

Contact Us