JUDGMENT.
Through the instant Constitutional Petition under.Article-199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 the petitioners have made the following prayers:- "Under the circumstances, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that on acceptance of the instant writ petition this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-- i) carry out meaningful consultation with the Establishment Division required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3.04 and create cadres in NAB as compulsorily required under Rule 3.01 of TCS-2002. ii) declare the process of initial appointments against 75% posts of the cadre of Assistant Director, 50% posts of Deputy Director and 33% posts of Additional Director as illegal, mala fide, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect; iii) direct the respondents to make the appointments by promotion to the next higher posts of the petitioners from the date of occurrence of posts of Assistant Director/Deputy Director/Additional Director with all consequential benefits; iv) direct the respondents to rationalize the rules and make initial appointments in BS-17 on 50:50 quota basis and convert 100% of posts in BPS-18 and above in promotion quota to safeguard the fundamental right of career growth of the petitioners."
2. It is pertinent to mention here that at the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Deputy Attorney-General as well as learned Additional Prosecutor General NAB and Senior Consultant NAB, appearing for Respondents No, 3 & 4 have consented to treat the instant writ petition, as a writ petition admitted for regular hearing, as vide order dated 31-07-2012 only pre- admission notice has been ordered to be issued to the respondents, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is treated as a writ petition admitted for regular hearing.
3. Briefly, the petitioners in the instant writ petition have mentioned that Respondent No, 3 (National Accountability Bureau (NAB) was created under the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999 and the petitioners joined the service of Respondent No, 3 in response to various advertisements. Recently NAB/Respondent No, 3 issued an advertisement for direct induction of 139 Junior Investigation Officers (BS-16), 103 Assistant Directors (BS-17), 49 Deputy Directors (BS-18), 18 Additional Directors (BS-19), Six Directors (BS-20) and 2 Director Generals (BS-21). All these inductions are being carried out by Respondents No, 3 & 4 in sheer violation of NAB Employees Terms and conditions of service (TCS) 2002 because sub rule (2) of Rule 3.04 of TCS, 2002, clearly stipulates prior consultation with Respondent No, 1 for determining the methods of appointment and qualifications etc. (MAQs), hence, the instant writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that National Accountability Bureau (NAB)
Employees Terms and Conditions of Services (TCS), 2002 were published through gazette notification dated 7th November, 2002; that according to sub-rule (2) of rule 3.04 of TCS, 2002, the method of appointment, qualification, experience and other conditions for various posts shall be laid down by the NAB, in consultation with the Establishment Division, however, Respondent No, 3 has not made any consultation prior to induction of different persons against different posts, therefore, the act of Respondent No, 3 regarding induction of different persons against the posts of 139 Junior Investigation Officers (BS-16), 103 Assistant Directors (BS-17), 49 Deputy Directors (BS-18), 18 Additional Directors (BS-19), Six Directors (BS-20) and 2 Director Generals (BS-21) is illegal; that Methods of Appointment and Qualifications (MAQs) of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) circulated vide S.R.O.781(I)/2002 dated 7th November, 2002 does not depict that methods, qualifications and other conditions are laid down for appointment against different posts in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), in consultation with the Establishment Division; that all the process of appointment is based on influence and the department is not following the rules; that the appointments have been made without following any criteria and on the basis of pick and choose; that the representations of the petitioners are lying with the department/Respondent No, 3 but the. same have not been decided so far. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that number of employees have been recruited in the NAB, on contract basis without any advertisement, in sheer violations of rules and if the respondents make recruitments after consultation with the Establishment Division, the grievance of the petitioners would be redressed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon 2011 PLC (C.S.) 592.
5. Conversely, learned Addl: Prosecutor General NAB, appearing on behalf of Respondents No, 3 & 4 has argued that number of petitioners were promoted from Junior Investigation Officer (BPS-16) to Assistant Director (BPS-17) and from Assistant Director (BPS-17) to Deputy Director (BS-18) on 25th January, 2012, however, the said fact has been concealed by the petitioners from the Court in order to give impression that NAB is not handling its employees in a proper legal manner; that Respondents No, 3 had adopted the same procedure while making the appointments of the petitioners in NAB, as it is adopting presently, therefore, the petitioners, in other words, through the instant writ petition have challenged their own appointments; that prior to the appointments, which are challenged by the petitioners, six batches of employees have been inducted in the NAB; that as far as, the contract employees are concerned, not a single contract employee has been impleaded as a party in the instant writ petition; that Chairman NAP is exercising his powers under Section 28(f) of National Accountability Bureau Ordinance, 1999, which empowers him to appoint different persons to assist him in performing the functions of the NAB; .that the petition has been filed only to harass NAB and Respondent No, 3 is already suffering from shortage of employees.
Learned Addl: Prosecutor General NAB appearing on behalf of Respondents No, 3 & 4 has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing on behalf of Respondents No, 1 & 2 has adopted the arguments of Addl: Prosecutor General NAB.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have meticulously perused the documents placed on the file.
8. The petitioners through the instant writ petition have challenged the appointments made by Respondent No, 3/NAB against the posts of Junior Investigation Officers, Assistant Directors, Deputy Directors, Additional Directors, Directors and Director Generals, on the plea that as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 3.04 of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) employees Terms and Conditions of Services (TCS), 2002, no consultation has been made by NAB with Respondent No, 1/ Establishment Division for determining the Methods of Appointment and Qualifications (MAQs) for the said posts.
9. Rule 3.04 of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Employees Terms and Conditions of Services (TCS), 2002 reads as under:- 3.04 Methods of Appointments and Qualifications etc.,. (1) Subject to paras (3) and (4) below appointment to posts shall be made on regular basis by any of the following methods, namely:- (a)By initial appointment in accordance with Part-II.
(b)By promotion in accordance with Part-III.
(c)By transfer in accordance with Part-IV.
(2) The method of appointment, qualification and experience and other conditions for various posts shall be laid down by the NAB, in consultation with the Establishment Division.
(3) ...............
(4) ............
As such, Respondent No, 3/NAB is required to lay down the method of appointment, qualification, experience and other conditions for appointment against different posts, in consultation with the Establishment Division. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stressed that no such consultation has been made by the NAB with the Establishment Division prior to induction of number of persons against different posts. I have carefully perused the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Methods of Appointment and Qualifications (MAQ) circulated vide S.R.O. 78(I)/2002. In the said Notification, Sanctioned Posts, Methods of Appointments and Conditions for Promotion have been mentioned, whereas, under the caption Qualifications, Experience and Age Limits for Initial Appointment, it is mentioned that:- A candidate must possess educational qualifications and experience and must be within age limits as mentioned against the post concerned in the schedule to this notification.
This notification issues with the concurrence of the Establishment Division and it supersedes all orders/notifications issued in connection with the above.
(Underlining and emphasizing is mine)
As such, it is crystal clear that National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Methods of Appointment and Qualifications (MAQ) circulated vide S.R.O. 78(1)/2002 were published with the concurrence of Establishment Division and the same contain consultation with the Establishment Division as required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 3.04 of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Employees Terms and Conditions of Services (TCS), 2002. Therefore, the plea taken by the petitioners in this, regard stands falsified. Taking the same into consideration, I find no force in the stance taken by the petitioners that Respondent No, 3/NAB has made the inductions/appointments against different posts, without consultation of Establishment Division as per requirement of sub-rule (2) of Rule 3.04 of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) Employees Terms and Conditions of Services (TCS), 2002.
10. The petitioners in the writ petition have also prayed that the respondents be directed to make the appointments by the promotion to the next higher posts of the petitioners from the date of occurrence of the post of Assistant Director, Deputy Director/Addl: Director with all consequential benefits. Learned Addl: Prosecutor General NAB has apprised the Court that number of petitioners were promoted on 25th January, 2012 from the post of Junior Investigation Officer (BPS-16) to Assistant Director (BPS-17) and from Assistant Director (BPS-17) to Deputy Director (BPS-18), however, the said fact has been concealed by the petitioners from the Court, therefore, in such a situation no direction can be issued to the respondents coupled with the fact that number of petitioners have already been promoted to the next higher grades and the stand taken by Respondents No, 3 & 4 in this regard has also not been controverted by the petitioners.
11. As far as, the prayer made by the petitioners for making 50:50 quota for appointments against BPS-17 and for conversion of 100% posts of BPS-18 and above in promotion quota, is concerned, the petitioners in the writ petition have not given any justification for 'the same and have also not placed any document on the file in support of their contention. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also not referred any law/rule on the basis of which the petitioners are entitled for such a relief.
12. In view of what has been discussed above, I have reached to the conclusion that the instant writ petition is without any merits. Resultantly, the same stands dismissed being meritless.