Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

2012 P L C (C.S.) 1293

[Lahore High Court]

Before, Ali Baqar Najafi, J

TAHIR ABBAS and 3 others

Versus

SECRETARY LIVE STOCK, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE and 6 others

Writ Petition No.9686 of 2012, heard on 9th May, 2012.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Civil service---Appointment---Applicants (petitioners) applied to the District Livestock Officer for different posts in response to an advertisement, whereafter they were offered the posts they had applied for ---Said offers were cancelled unilaterally by the concerned department and the applicants approached the Provincial Ombudsman, who accepted their representation and directed the appointing authority to issue appointment letter to the applicants within 15 days---Said order of Provincial Ombudsman remained unattended and the applicants approached the High Court for a direction to the concerned officers and department to implement the order of the Provincial Ombudsman---Contentions of the department and concerned officers were that an appeal had been filed before the Governor against the decision of the Provincial Ombudsman, which was pending; that only an offer for appointment was made; that a large number of people remained unaware of the advertisement for the post and the department was going to re-advertise the posts, and that the applicants should wait for the decision of the appeal filed before the Governor---Contentions of the applicants were that the concerned department was duty bound to comply with the order of the Provincial Ombudsman and issue appointment order; that filing of appeal before the Governor was no ground for non-compliance of the order of the Provincial Ombudsman and in case the decision of appeal was in favour of the department, it had every right to expel the applicants---Validity---Right had accrued in favour of the applicants when the Provincial Ombudsman issued direction to the concerned department for issuance of appointment letter in favour of the applicants---Department had conceded that offer letter for appointment was issued on merit--- Concerned department and officers were public functionaries and were under a duty to obey the order passed by the office of the Provincial Ombudsman in letter and spirit, unless implementation of the said order was stayed or set-aside by the appellate authority---Contention of the department was that office of Provincial Ombudsman misconstrued the offer letter and the same was not open to the High Court to interfere, as High Court was not court of appeal in the case---Constitutional petition was allowed and concerned department and officers were directed to comply with the order of the Provincial Ombudsman.

Ch. Anees ur Rehman for Petitioner.

Ms. Rabbiya Bajwa, A.A.-G. with Ghulam Mustafa District Officer Livestock..

Date of hearing: 9th May, 2012.

JUDGMENT

ALI BAQAR NAJAFI, J.--- Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners applied to the District Livestock Officer, Jhang for different posts in response to advertisement and were offered posts vide Order No.4276-88/DLO/JNG dated 24-5-2010 which were cancelled unilaterally prompting the petitioners to approach the Provincial Ombudsman Punjab for redressal of their grievance, who on 23-7-2010? accepted the representation and directed the appointing authority to issue appointment letter within 15 days from the date of receipt of order. When the same remained unattended, the petitioners approached this Court for a direction to respondents Nos.3 to 5 to implement the order of? respondent No.6.

2.???????? On 18-4-2012 respondent No.3 was directed to file report and parawise comments to this petition which was submitted by him. The stance taken by respondent No.3 in the report and parawise comments is that the respondent-department filed an appeal before the Governor Punjab against the decision of the Provincial Ombudsman which is pending; that only an offer for appointment was made; that number of complaints were received as large number of people remained unaware regarding the advertisement for the posts and the department is going to re?-advertise the posts. Lastly, it was reiterated that the petitioners should wait for the decision of the appeal filed by the department before the Governor Punjab.

3.???????? Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that all the objections raised by the department by way of parawise comments have been duly dealt with by the office of Provincial Ombudsman constituted for the purpose and answered in favour of the petitioners. The respondent-department is duty bound to comply with the order and issue the appointment order. Further submits that filing of appeal is no ground to hesitate for its compliance and in case of decision in favour of the respondent? department in appeal, the respondent-department has every right to expel the petitioners.

4.???????? On the other hand, learned Law Officer has strongly opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that no right has accrued in favour of the petitioners during the pendency of appeal. Further submits that the petitioners would suffer no loss in case of non-issuance of appointment letter rather the department has to follow certain coddle formalities in order to expel them in case the appeal of department succeeds. She lastly submits that the Provincial Ombudsman while deciding the representation of the petitioners wrongly assumed the offer letters as appointment letters and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

5.???????? I? have? heard? the? learned? counsel? for? the? petitioners? and learned Law Officer and perused the record annexed with the petition minutely.

6.???????? The crux of the matter is that a right has been accrued in favour of the petitioners when the office of the Provincial Ombudsman issued direction to the department for issuance of appointment letters in favour of the petitioners. The department in its parawise comments conceded that the offer letter for appointment was issued on merit. The argument of the learned Law Officer that the petitioners should wait for the decision of appeal of the department has no weight as the order passed needs to be complied with unless its implementation is stayed or set-aside by the appellate authority. The last argument of the learned Law Officer that the office of respondent No.6, while deciding representation of the petitioners, misconstrued the offer letters as orders is not open to this Court as this Court is not exercising its jurisdiction as an appellate court. The respondents Nos.3 to 5, public functionaries, are under statutory duty to obey the order passed by the office of Provincial Ombudsman in letter and spirit.

7.???????? For what has been discussed above, this petition is allowed and respondents Nos.3 to 5 are directed to comply with the order of respondent No.6 within a week from the receipt of judgment of this Court.

M.W.A./T-15/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Lahore High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant