Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NUZHAT ABBAS JAFFERY VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF SINDH,Honorable Justice Nasir Aslam ZahidSyed Shaukat Ali
1993 P L C (C
1993 P L C (C.S.) 470
[Karachi High Court]
Before Nasir Aslam Zahid and Allahdino G. Memon, JJ
Syed NUZHAT ABBAS JAFFERY and others
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF SINDH
Constitutional Petition No. D/889 of 1991, decided on 29th July, 1991.
Civil service‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑ Appointment‑‑‑Offers in writing were made to petitioners by Authority after they had undergone interview/tests, but were not taken on duty as they were informed by Authority that a ban had been imposed by Government on fresh appointments‑‑‑Formal appointment order which was to be issued by Authority after, acceptance of offers by petitioners, having not been issued, submission of petitioners that as their appointments had been made prior to imposition of ban, it did not come in way of their appointment, was without merit.
Syed Shaukat Ali for Petitioners.
Date of hearing: 29th July, 1991.
ORDER
NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.‑‑‑According to the learned counsel, after the petitioners in this petition had undergone interview/tests, offers in writing were made to all the petitioners for appointment as Sub‑Engineers, Draughtsmen, Tracers and Accounts Clerks in the Public Health Engineering Department, Government of Sindh, but the petitioners were not taken on duty as they were informed that a ban had been imposed by the Government on fresh appointments. According to the learned counsel, offers in writing had been made before the ban had come into effect and, therefore, the ban did not come in the way of their appointment.
We have been taken through the offers of the appointment, copies whereof have been filed as Annexures to this petition. From these offers, it follows that a formal appointment order had to be issued after acceptance of the offers by the petitioners. No appointment orders were passed or issued by the Government in favour of the petitioners. In the circumstances, the submission of the learned counsel is without merit that appointments had been made prior to the imposition of ban imposed by the Government.
It was then submitted by the learned counsel that, under the relevant rules, there is no provision for "offer for appointment" and as such the offers for appointment made to the petitioners were illegal and they should be treated as appointment orders. This submission is also without merit. The documents on which the petitioners rely are not appointment orders and it had been made clear in the said letters offering appointments that formal appointment orders will be issued later on.
We have also noted that the terms which would have applied to the petitioners in case they had been appointed were that they would have remained in Government service on temporary basis for period of two years during which period their services would have been liable to be terminated without notice.
We find no merit in this petition which is dismissed in limine.
The application for interim relief has become infructuous:
H.B.T./N‑433/K Petition dismissed.