IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN, CJ. --- Through this single judgment, the instant writ petition as well as following writ petitions are being decided which have arisen out of a common question of law and facts:---
(1) W.P. No. 2932 of 2011 titled Mrs. Saminna Rehman v. The Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division etc.
(2) W.P. No. 3050 of 2010 titled Mrs. Syeda Sughra Kiran AI-Mosvi v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(3) W.P. No. 3994 of 2010 titled Mst. Fauzia Shaheen v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(4) W.P. No. 4556 of 2010 titled Syeda Farzana Batool v. Secretary Education, Ministry of Education etc.
(5) W.P. No. 2305 of 2010 titled Mst. Samita Khalid v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(6) W.P. No. 2278 of 2010 titled Mrs. Bas Nihar v. The Federation of Pakistan etc.
(7) W.P. No. 753 of 20.10 titled Mst. Farida Gul etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(8) W.P. No. 2943 of 2011 titled Mrs. Lmtiaz Akhter v. The Secretary, Federation of Pakistan etc.
(9) W.P. No. 728 of 2010 titled Mrs. Rubina Arif v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(10) W.P. No. 1402 of 2010 titled Mrs. Aziza Tariq v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(11) W.P. No. 1708 of 2010 titled Mst. Shahina Niazi and others v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(12) W.P. No. 746 of 2010 titled Mst. Falaq-un-Nisa etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(13) W.P. No. 1130 of 2010 titled Mrs. Rubina Kausar v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(14) W.P. No. 1834 of 2010 titled Ishrat Bano etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc. .
(15) W.P. No. 2821 of 2010 titled Siraj Begum v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(16) W.P. No. 3019 of 2010 titled Mrs. Salma Tabassum v. The Secretary, Federation of Pakistan etc.
(17) W.P. No. 250 of 2011 titled Mrs. Nusrat Rasheed v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(18) W.P. No. 3692 of 2010 titled Mrs. Rajman Shaheen v. The Federal Director General of Education etc.
(19) W.P. No. 3841 of 2010 titled Shahida. Malik v. The Federation of Pakistan etc.
(20) W.P. No. 867 of 2010 titled Shagufta Begum etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(21) W.P. No. 370 of 2010 titled Mrs. Shaheen Akhter v. Ministry of Education etc.
(22) W.P. No. 3844 of 2009 titled Mrs. Rahat Shahzadi v. Ministry of Education etc.
(23) W.P. No. 1314 of 2011 titled Mrs. Kausar Parvin v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(24) W.P. No. 1137 of 2011 titled Mrs. Robina Niazi v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(25) W.P. No. 4540 of 2010 titled Mrs. Sirtaj Begum v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(26) W.P. No. 3939 of 2010 titled Mst. Yasmin Akhtar v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(27) W.P. No. 2655 of 2010 titled Mrs. Naimat Jan etc. v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(28) W.P. No. 2560 of 2010 titled Mrs. Bibi Surriya v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(29) W.P. No. 2214 of 2010 titled Mrs. Zahida Khanum v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(30) W.P. No. 1797 of 2010 titled Mrs. Shamas Mushtaq v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(31) W.P. No. 2169 of 2011 titled Rukhsana Farrukh v. The Director (F) Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad etc.
(32) W.P., No. 3008 of 2011 titled Mst. Athar-unNisa v. The Secretary, Federation of Pakistan etc.
(33) W.P. No. 2971 of 2010 titled Shafqat Munir v. The Secretary, Federation of Pakistan etc.
(34) W.P. No. 3012 of 2011 titled Mst. Rozina Tasneem v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(35) W.P. No. 3059 of 2011 titled Mst. Neelum Waheed v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(36) W.P. No. 1586 of 2010 titled Mst. Riffat Waqar v. The Federal Directorate of Education etc.
(37) W.P. No. 2978 of 2011 titled Malik Muhammad Ijaz v. The Federal Director General of Education etc.
(38) W.P. No. 2264 of 2011 titled Mst. Najma Yasmeen v. Director General, Federal Directorate of Education etc.
(39) W.P. No. 2881 of 2011 titled Mst. Razia Begum v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(40) W.P. No. 3067 of 2011 titled Mst. Rabia Niaz v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(41) W.P. No. 2324 of 2011 titled Mst.
Ume- Kalsoom v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(42) W.P. No. 2334 of 2010 titled Mst. Shahida Parveen Khanum v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(43) W.P. No. 3065 of 2011 titled Mst. Barjees Ashfaq v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
(44) W.P. No. 2774 of 2011 titled Hadia Akbar v. Federation of Pakistan etc.
2. Compendious facts of these Constitutional petitions are that the petitioners were working at different cities/Provinces and in different pay scales. After due procedure, they were appointed on deputation and presently they are serving on deputation. Most of the petitioners have completed maximum/stipulated period of 5 years on deputation. In some cases orders for repatriation have also been issued. The instant Constitutional petitions have been pressed upon the grounds of wedlock policy, medical ground, parent department/place of posting is situated in far flung areas, children are studying in Islamabad, repatriation due political pressure, respondents want to appoint the persons according to their own choice, permanent absorption of some of deputationist, extraordinary performance rendered by them during the period of deputation, socio-economic problems, posts are available, parent departments have no objection on permanent absorption and discrimination. It is further added that since the petitioners have served on deputation for the last so many year and their spouses are also working at Islamabad, therefore, right of permanent absorption has been accrued in their favour. Some of the petitioners have also challenged letter dated 03.02.2010 issued by Director Schools (Female), by virtue of which it was observed that all deputationist shall automatically stood repatriated to their parent departments on completion of their maximum 05 years of deputation period under Federal Directorate of Education with no exception in any case, as there is no provision in rules to remain on deputation after period of 5 years. It is, therefore, prayed that the orders of repatriation be declared illegal; they may not be repatriated to their parent departments and be allowed to continue work at Islamabad. In some of petitions, it has been prayed that their deputation period may be extended and in others it is requested that they be absorbed permanently etc.
3. The respondents have opposed these petitions tooth and nail.
4. Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were employees of Provincial Government and their services were requisitioned on deputation on the ground of wedlock policy. The case of the petitioners is not mere that of deputation, but it is a case on the strength of wedlock policy. The learned counsel after reading letter No. F.9-18(W)FDE, dated 03.02.2010 submits that the Federal Directorate has initiated an action for regularization of deputationist on permanent basis. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, Rule 11 of Rules of Business, 1973 provides that all the matters relating to the terms and conditions of service would be regulated by the Establishment Division. The learned counsel then read Office Memorandum No. 10/30/97-R-II, dated 13.5.1998, wherein policy of posting of serving husband/wife at the same station has been described and stresses that the same is binding upon the respondents. The learned counsel invited the attention of the Court towards Office Memorandum No. 10/30/97-R-2, dated 21.4.2006 issued by Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad, whereby the wedlock policy was extended to female government servants whose spouses are not in government service or employed in the private sector or even unemployed. Further submits that a summary has been sent to the Prime Minister for extension of time of deputationist who have completed 5 years on deputation under wedlock policy; that vide letter dated 8.2.1999, the quota of deputation for permanent absorption has been fixed; that vide letters dated 3.9.2005 & 24.5.2007, certain deputationist had been permanently absorbed, but even then the petitioners are not being absorbed and he termed the same as discrimination. Learned counsel also referred order of this Court dated 20.4.2009, passed in some earlier writ petitions, wherein the Director (Training & Colleges), Prof. M. Rafique Tahir appeared before the Court and stated that the orders of repatriation of the deputationist including the said petitioners had been kept in abeyance till the decision of summary from the Prime Minister of Pakistan, therefore, on this statement writ petitions were disposed of. He submitted that in fact, the respondents want to appoint some other officials of their own choice under political pressure. In order to fortify his contentions, Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Advocate has relied upon the case of Sajida Abdullah v.
District Coordination Officer and 2 others (2011 PLC (C.S) 592 Lahore High Court) Muhammad Afzal and another v. Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, Lahore and another (2009 PLC (C.S) 580) and Director-General, Health Services, NWFP, Peshawar and another v. Dr. Nizakat lqbal Karim and another (PLJ 2000 SC 54). Learned counsel states that Articles 4, 37 and 38 of the Constitution protect the rights of the petitioners. The petitioners have given 100% result. No departmental inquiry or disciplinary proceedings are pending against the petitioners and they fulfill all the criteria required for permanent absorption on the respective posts, therefore, the petitioners be absorbed permanently.
5. Mr. Muhammad Mushtaq Bhatti, Advocate learned counsel for petitioners Mrs. Rubina Arif and Mrs. Aziza Tariq enthusiastically contends that the impugned orders regarding repatriation of the petitioners are illegal, unlawful and against the wedlock policy. Some blue eyed chaps deputationist are being absorbed by the department, but discriminatory treatment is being adopted towards the petitioners, which is against the law, Constitution, procedure and cannon of justice and even no reasons are being advanced in this regard. Reliance is placed on the case of Dr. Shoukat Pervez v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, that the petitioners have completed more than 13/14 years on deputation and NOCs of their parent departments have also been received, but even then no action is being taken towards absorption of the petitioners. Further contends that petitioner Aziza Tariq was awarded "best teacher" award twice and she had given 100% result; that due to political pressure the said petitioners are not being absorbed, which is against the wedlock policy and even if a husband is retired, wife is entitled to serve at Islamabad; that the children of the petitioners are studying in schools and if they are not absorbed the whole family would be bound to suffer a lot; that the impugned orders are in breach of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which provides that the public functionaries while exercising power should act justly, fairly and reasonably, therefore, the petitioners should have been allowed to remain on deputation. Further contended that the wedlock policy was introduced keeping in view the socio-economic problems and hardships being faced by the husband & wife due to posting at different stations of duty.
6. Sardar Shabbir Hussain, Advocate further adds that order of repatriation of his petitioners was passed on the basis of judgment of this Court dated 19.5.2011, but the same was not applicable to the case of the petitioners for the simple reason that the petitioners are pressing their claim on the basis of wedlock policy. The respondents have not filed written comments, therefore, under the law the facts narrated in the petitions would be deemed to be admitted. In order to support his contentions he has relied upon Col.(R) Syed Mukhtar Hussain v. Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad and 3 others (2004 CLC 1019, Lahore) Human Rights Cases Nos. 4668 of 2006, 1111 of 2007 and 15283-G of 2010 (PLD 2010 SC 759) and Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab and 4 others (2003 PLC (CS) 1322 Lahore High Court). He also submits that deputation allowance had not been provided to petitioner Neelum Waheed (W.P. No. 3059/2011) since 1995 and the said petitioner has also prayed for the same in the petition.
7. Learned counsel for other petitioners either have adopted the arguments of M/s. Abdul Rahim Bhatti and Mushtaq Hussain Bhatti, Advocates or argued almost on similar lines as described supra with little bit changes. Reliance has further been placed on the cases of Syeda Adeeba Anjum v. Secretary Government of Punjab Education Department, Lahore and another (2004 PLC (C.S.) [Lahore High Court] 622), Sajida Abdullah v. District Coordination Officer and 2 others (2011 PLC (C.S.) [Lahore High Court, Uzma Javed v. Government of Punjab through Secretary Education, Punjab and 2 others (2010 YLR 1968, Lahore), Walayat A.I Mir v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through its Chairman and another (1995 SCMR 650), Abid Hussain and others v. P.I.A.C. And others (2005 SCMR 25), Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others (1996 SCMR 1185) and Syeda Shazia lrshad Bokhari v.
Government of Punjab through Secretary Health and another (PLD 2005 Lahore 428).
8. While opposing the Constitutional petitions, learned Deputy Attorney-General came up with variety of arguments and contends that it is not the right of the petitioners/deputationist for permanent absorption. Some of the petitioners do not fulfill the required criteria of posts such as qualification and experience etc. Under the law the period of deputation is 3 years which may be extended upto 5 years, therefore, they have to be repatriated to their parent departments. The petitioners have already availed the maximum period of 5 years on deputation. The period of ,deputation must be according to their respective notifications. There is absolutely no law that period of deputation can be extended beyond 5 years.
No discriminating attitude has been adopted towards the petitioners, therefore, the question of discrimination does not arise. Further .Stressed that no person has been absorbed after 0.3.2.2011.
Maximum period on deputation does not create any right for permanent absorption and the petitions have not been supported by any law. There are other more than 200 candidates who are waiting for their deputation under wedlock policy, and if the present petitions are allowed., they would be deprived of their legal right. The petitioners who are working in BPS-17 or above, their cases are to be decided by the Federal Public Service Commission. To add vigor to his contentions, reliance has been placed on Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi v. C.D.A. Islamabad through Chairman and others (2010 PLC (CS) 367 [Supreme Court of Pakistan], Mst. Fahim Murmtaz v. Secretary (Schools)
(2010 PLC (CS) [Lahore High Court] 619) and Lal Khan v. Employee Old Age Benefit Institution through Chairman and 2 others (2010 PLC [Karachi High Court]).
9. I have heard the arguments advanced at length from both the sides and scanned the material made available in-depth.
10. It is an admitted fact that all the petitioners are deputationist. Insofar as period of deputation is concerned, under the law as provided at SI. No. 28 (Chapter-II) of ESTACODE, Civil Establishment Code (Edition-2007, Volume 1), the normal deputation period is three years, which is extendable for another two years. It is further mentioned that a government servant cannot remain on deputation for more than 5 years. It has never been provided anywhere that a deputationist cannot be repatriated to his parent department by the borrowing department before expiry of normal tenure of deputation. It is the sole discretion of competent authority of borrowing department to decide the fate of deputationist. Even Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Advocate has candidly admitted during the course of arguments this settled/legal position of law that it is the sole discretion of competent authority to repatriate a deputationist at any time and deputationist has no vested right to remain on deputation. After threadbare analysis of facts and circumstances of these Constitutional petitions and the controversy involved, I have come to the conclusion that in such-like cases, jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 cannot be invoked. In this regard, I am pining my faith on the case of Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi v.
C.D.A., Islamabad through Chairman and others (2010 SCMR 378) wherein it was held as under:--- "Civil servant has no vested right to complete deputation period and matter relating to terms and conditions of service---Constitutional jurisdiction as conferred upon High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. A Deputationist could not be treated as "aggrieved person" provided he was placed in the same grade and status in borrowing cadre which he was enjoying before his status of deputationist---Such civil servant has no vested right to remain on a post as deputationist forever or for a stipulated period as mentioned in notification and can be repatriated at any time." ---Transfer on deputation---Repatriation--Validity---Not vested right of a civil servant/statutory employee to continue on deputation.
Moreover, in the case of Fida Muhammad v. Government of N.-W.F.P. Through Secretary Local Government and Rural Department Secretariat, Peshawar and 3 others (2005 PLC (C.S.) 1207 [Peshawar High Court] it was ruled out that:--- "---Deputation---Repatriation of civil servant to parent department before completion of tenure of deputation--Validity---Law never provided that deputationist should complete tenure for which he was deputed---Competent authority had discretion to repatriate deputationist as and when his services were required by parent department--Civil servant had been treated in accordance with terms and conditions of his appointment, whereby he was bound to serve anywhere in Pakistan and not supposed to work at station of his choice--Civil servant had not been deprived of his legal rights by repatriation."
Reliance may also be placed on Lal Khan v. Employees Old Age Benefit Institution through Chairman and 2 others (2010 P.L.0 (C.S) 1377 [Karachi High Court].
11. In view of above, there is no departure from the conclusion that neither a deputationist has a legal right to claim his permanent absorption nor can seek to remain on deputation and he or she can be repatriated to parent department even before the expiry of deputation period.
12. Basically, these petitions have been pressed on the ground of wedlock policy. In order to appreciate the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties regarding wedlock policy, it will be advantageous to highlight the wedlock policy of government enumerated in different letters/Office Memorandums. Most of the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon Office Memorandum dated 13.5.1998, which is re-produced as under:--- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN CABINET SECRETARIAT ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION No. 10/30/97-R.II Islamabad the 13th May, 1998.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject:- POSTING OF SERVING HUSBAND/WIFE AT THE SAME STATION The undersigned is directed to state that government has taken note of the socio-economic problems and hardships faced by husbands and wives in government service due to posting at different stations of duty, and it has been decided to prescribed the following guidelines to facilitate posting of husband and wife at the same station:-
(i) Where a request is made for posting at a different station in the same department/service/cadre in which an employee is already serving, the request may be accepted subject to availability of a post in the same BPS.
(ii) If a request involves temporary deputation to another department, it may be processed in consultation with the concerned department, and may be accepted on the prescribed terms of deputation subject to availability of a post in the same BPS.
(iii) When a request is made for permanent transfer to/absorption in another department/agency, the request may be processed in consultation with the department concerned, subject to the condition that in the event of permanent transfer, seniority shall be determined in accordance with Rule 4 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993.
(iv) If there is a tie between two or more government servants for posting at the same station in the same department/Unit of an organization, the government servant with greater length of service may be preferred.
(v) Request for posting by a spouse facing serious medical problems may be accorded highest priority.
(vi) Spouses already posted at one station, including those posted on deputation beyond prescribed maximum period, may normally not be disturbed without compelling reasons of public interest. Request for extension of deputation period beyond possible limit may be considered with compassion if interests of public service would permit.
2. The above guidelines are subject to the following conditions:---
(i) Posting of husband and wife at the same station should not be made by dislocation of any Government Servant already serving at a particular station unless his transfer is necessitated by compelling reasons of public interest or within framework of general policy of posting and transfers.
(ii) The prescribed selection authority should be consulted in each case.
3. All government servants whose spouses are in government service may be asked to furnish at the end of every calendar year the particulars of their spouses to their controlling ministries/divisions so as to facilitate maintenance of ICP Charts and upto-date monitoring of the situation.
4. The above guide lines may be circulated to the autonomous bodies under the charge of Ministries/divisions for adoption, with such modification as may be considered necessary.
(M. Ramizul Haq)
Senior Joint Secretary to the Government of Pakistan All Ministries/Divisions Islamabad/Rawalpindi In Office Memorandum No. 10/30/97-R-2, dated 17.12.1999 similar directions have been issued. In this regard another Office Memorandum No. 1/20/2005-E-I, dated 14.5.2005 was issued, which reads as under:--- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN CABINET SECRETARIAT ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION No. 1/20/2005-E-I Islamabad the 14th May, 2005.
OFFICE MEMORANDUM Subject:- EXTENSION IN THE DEPUTATION PERIOD BEYOND FIVE YEARS The undersigned is directed to refer to Ministry of Education's O.M. No. F.9-1/96(W)FDE(S&C), dated 31.3.2005 on the subject noted above and to inform that posting of husband and wife at the same station may normally not be disturbed without compelling reasons of public interest. Further no limit has been prescribed in the wedlock policy. Approval of the Secretary, Establishment Division is required in the case of extension in the deputation period beyond five years under the wedlock policy.
(Muhammad Saleemullah Section Officer Ministry of Education (Mr.Ghulam Muhammad), Section Officer, Islamabad Office Memorandum No. 10/30/97-R-2, dated 21.4.2006 is re-produced as under:- GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN CABINET SECRETARIAT ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION No. 10/30/97-R.2 OFFICE Islamabad the 21st April, 2006. MEMORANDUM.
Subject: Subject: POSTING OF MARRIED FEMALE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS AT THE PLACE OF RESIDENCE/POSTING OF THEIR. HUSBANDS WHO ARE NOT IN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT. The undersigned is directed to state that keeping in view the socio-economic problems and hardships faced b husbands and wives in Government service due to posting at different stations of duty, the Establishment Division issued instructions/guideline vide its O.M. No. 10/30/97-R-2, dated 13.5.1998 and 17.12.1999 to facilitate posting of husbands and wives at the same station and the posting of unmarried female civil servants at the place of residence of their facilitate those femlae spouses are not in g in the private sector decided to extend government servants place of residence whether such spo Government, private parents /families. With a view to e government servants whose government service or employed or unemployed, it has been the facility to this class of also, to be able to serve at the f their spouses, irrespective of ses, are employed with the ector, or even un-employed.
(Amir-ul-Haq) Deputy Secretary All Ministries/Division Islamabad/Rawal
13. From the plain reading of above-said wedlock policy, it is obvious that the word "may" has been used in the said letters and not "shall'. It has never been stressed that all the deputationist whose spouses are working at Islamabad shall must be absorbed or will continue to serve at Islamabad.
As regards the contention that some of deputationist have been absorbed, the same cannot be taken into consideration, for the simple reason that it was the discretion of the competent authority to absorb some of deputationist according to requirement of department, capabilities, know-how, performance, qualification, general reputation and on the basis of annual confidential reports. The others cannot claim the same treatment as of right. The deputation is a contract if borrowing department does not need the services of a deputationist, he or she must go back to parent department and thus no fundamental rights of the petitioners have been infringed and no provisions of Constitution have been violated. Learned counsel for the petitioners have failed to rebut the contention of learned Deputy Attorney-General that at present no deputationist is being absorbed. There appears no political element with regard to repatriation of the petitioners to their parent departments.
14. As regards non-submission of written comments, as agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the same is totally unfounded objection. Suffice it to say that it is a settled law that the petitioner has to stand on his own legs and lacunas or weaknesses of opposite side cannot extend any help to prove his case. Further, legal questions are involved in these petitions, so this objection has no legal backing and cannot be given any weightage. Moreover, the statement of Director (Training .& Colleges), Prof. M. Rafique Tahir in previously disposed of Constitutional petitions cannot come to rescue the petitioners inasmuch as according to written comments the summary sent to Prime Minister was returned by the Ministry of Education.
15. This Court cannot lost sight of the fact that absorption or continue on deputation is not a vested right of a deputationist. Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court can be invoked where there is a clear legal right. In this regard, I am pinning my faith on the case of Anjuman Fruit Arhtian and others v. Deputy Commissioner Faisalabad and others (2011 SCMR 279), wherein it has been ruled out that "it is mandatory and obligatory for a party invoking the Constitutional jurisdiction to establish a clear legal right which should be beyond any doubt and controversy". It is also settled law that Constitutional petition can be filed for enforcement of a legal right and not to establish a legal right. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Faiz Bakhsh and others v.
Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer, Bahawalpur and others (2006 SCMR 219), which lays down as under:--- "We are mindful of the fact that under Constitutional jurisdiction the High Court is fully empowered for enforcement of the fundamental rights but it must be satisfied with such allegations which are well-founded, without any bias and based on concrete evidence. It may be kept in view that the main object of the provisions as contained in Article 199 of the Constitution is the enforcement of the rights and not the establishment of the legal rights and in such view of the matter the petitioners who seeks to enforce such legal rights must be specific, precise, clear and unambiguous and besides that there must be an actual infringement of the rights so asserted." therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution.
16. It is observed with great concern that some of the petitioners/deputationist are still working in borrowing department despite expiry of deputation period a few years ago, which is contrary to law, settled rules, against the principle of good governance and the same is also careless, callous, indifferent approach of the petitioners and both the concerned departments i.e. Borrowing department and parent departments. The same has been done in connivance with each others.
This Court cannot close its eyes to such a glaring illegalities and irregularities, due to which certain other officials who are waiting for their deputation under wedlock policy in Islamabad have been deprived of their legal right. These illegalities, irregularities and violation of rules cannot be ignored.
Therefore, it is directed that a fact finding committee shall be constituted by the Director General, Federal Directorate of Education, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, who shall fix the responsibility of officers/officials who were responsible to take action for repatriation of deputationist who had completed their stipulated period and had not been repatriated except in those cases, in which Courts had granted status quo order at the time of completion of maximum period and after determining such responsible officers/officials strict disciplinary action shall be taken against those delinquent officers/officials after inquiry in accordance with law.
17. It is also surprising to note that for the absorption of deputationist no hard and fast rule has been provided in law, and the matter has been left at the mercy and discretion of competent authority, which is creating untoward situation. Therefore, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs is suggested to examine the matter and frame specific rules/criteria regarding absorption of deputationist on permanent basis.
18. For what has been discussed above, all the Constitutional petitions mentioned above being devoid of merits are dismissed.