AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of above three petitions for leave to appeal. Civil Petitions Nos. 529-K of 1993 and 531-K of 1993 are directed against common judgment dated 27-9-1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) inter alia, in Appeal No. 76 (K)/1992 and Appeal No.21-(K)/1992 filed by the respondent No.1 of the above two appeals, allowing the same by setting aside the Government order reverting the above respondent No. 1 to their original allocated groups/posts for the following reasons:-- "The Prime Minister, thus validly and within his authority allocated the groups to all these officers in the District Management Group and the Police Service of Pakistan and he having once made it and his orders having been acted upon, locus poenitentiae or power to recede was not available to him under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. In the present cases, no doubt, the appellants had completed the .Requisite training in their respective fields and thus vested right had created in their favour. In our opinion, therefore, no locus poenitentiae, as already stated, was available to the Government to cancel those orders which had already been acted upon. In somewhat similar circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Raja Muhammad Nawaz v.
Government of Punjab (1981 SCM R 523) had held that in such circumstances an order of appointment could not be recalled. Reliance was also placed on several cases reported as PLD 1955 FC 46, PLD 1969 SC (Pak.) 407, PLD 1964 SC 503 and 1980 SCM R 268."
2.Whereas C.P. No. 530-K Rf 1993 is directed against the judgment dated 2-10-1993 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No. 20(K)/92 filed by the respondent No. 3 in the above petition against the Government order of reverting him to his original group/post, allowing the same by setting aside the above order for more or less the reasons which found favour with the Tribunal in the above two other petitions for leave to appeal.
3. The brief facts are that respondent No. 3, Mushtaq Ahmad Shaikh, in C.P. No. 529-K/93 appeared in Central Superior Services examination in the year 1987. He was allocated Accounts Group on the basis of the merit. However, on his representation to the Prime Minister, on 6-11-1989, he was re- allocated District Management Group. He was reverted to his original Accounts Group which action he challenged through Constitution petition without success. Then he filed the above Service Appeal.
4. Whereas, respondent No. 3, Wasif Ali, in C.P. 530-K/93 appeared in C.S.S. Examination for the year 1988. He was allocated Income-tax Group. However, upon his representation, the Prime Minister ordered reallocation of Customs and Excise Group by order dated 11-12-1989. However, he was also reverted.
To his original Income-tax Group by an order dated 4-2-1991. Thereupon, he filed the above Civil Appeal.
5. Whereas, respondent No. 3, Tanweer Ahmad Qureshi, in C.P.531-K/93 appeared in C.S.S. Examination for the year 1988. He was allocated Foreign Service. However, upon his representation to the Prime Minister he was reallocated on 9-9-1990 D.M.G. Group. He was also reverted to his original group by an order dated 3-2-1991. Thereupon, he filed the above Service Appeal.
The above three respondents were reverted back to their original groups when they were about to complete their training. They were allowed to complete their above training on the basis of the orders passed by the High Court of Sindh in Constitution petition filed by them.
6. It may be observed that the present petitioners in the above three petitions for leave to appeal were not parties to the above Service Appeals. Their applications to be impleaded as parties were dismissed by the Tribunal.
Their case is that all the above three petitioners appeared in C.S.S. Examination for the year 1987.
Petitioner No. 1, Liaquat Ali Memon, was placed in Accounts Group, whereas, petitioner No. 2, Khalid Hussain Memon was placed in Foreign Service Group and petitioner No. 3, Ayaz Illahi, was assigned Information Group. However, they appeared in C.S.S. Examination for the year 1989. According to petitioner No. 1, Liaquat Memon, his position was fourth which entitles him to D.M.G. Group. Whereas, petitioner No. 2, Khalid Hussain Memon's case is that his position was sixth which entitles him to the Police Group and whereas, the case of petitioner No. 3, Ayaz Illahi, is that his position was fifth which entitles him to Police Group. The above positions they had claimed on the basis of the seats reserved for respective rural area. However, they were not reallocated the above groups on the basis of their results in the above examination of 1989. Their grievance is that if the Tribunal would not have allowed respondent No.3 in the above Service Appeals, they, would have chance to get reallocation of the groups. They have. Therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal against above judgments of the Tribunal, though, they were not parties to the above Service Appeals.
7. In support of the above petition, Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court, appearing for the petitioners has vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing the petitioners' above applications for becoming parties to the above appeals. The above contention appears to be devoid of, any force as admittedly, the petitioners were not holding any of the posts to which the above respondent No. 3 have been reverted by the impugned judgments of the Tribunal.
8. On the other hand, it is admitted position that the petitioners had completed training in their original allocated groups on the basis of the examination of 1987 and got posted in their respective groups. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was justified to decline the petitioners' above, applications.
9. Then it was urged by Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan that on the basis of the results of C.S.S. Examination for the year 1989, in which the petitioners had obtained the above positions, they are entitled to the above new groups, which they have been denied. We asked him to point out any statutory rule under which the petitioners can claim reallocation of the groups on the basis of the 1989 Examination, as a matter of right, and that too after having completed training for the original groups allocated on the basis of 1987 examination and after having been posted in their respective groups. He was unable to point out any rule. On the contrary, he has candidly invited our attention to Office Memorandum No. 1/4/88.T.V(Pt-XIII) dated 24-4-1990 of the Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division which reads as follows:-- CHANGE OP OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS /SERVICES: The undersigned is directed to state that allocations to various occupational groups/services are made on the basis of competitive examinations conducted annually by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC). While recommending candidates for allocations to different groups/services, .The FPSC takes into consideration the merit position, number of vacancies available, regional/ provincial quota, suitability and preferences of candidates.
Although change of occupational groups is not admissible under the rules, a number of applications/representations are being received in the Establishment Division requesting for change from one occupational group to another after the allocation has been made in accordance with the laid down procedure.
(3) It has, therefore, been decided with the approval of the competent authority that Ministries/Divisions/Provincial Governments should not forward applications, representations relating to change of occupational groups to the Establishment Division.
(4)All Ministries/Divisions/Provincial Governments are requested to comply with these instructions so as to reduce the problems arising out of numerous requests for change of groups and in keeping with the principle of sound personnel management.
(Sd.)
Salim Iqbal, Deputy Secretary (IT)"
10.In view of the above memorandum, the petitioners cannot seek aid of the Tribunal or of this Court to get service groups reallocated on the basis of their results in the 1989 C.S.S. Examination.
It was also contended by Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan that respondent No. 3 in the above three petitions for leave to appeal were reallocated Service Groups even without improving their positions through C.S.S. Examination and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in ordering their reversion to the reallocated service groups. In this regard, it may be pertinent to refer to paras.12, 13 and 14 of the notice dated 1-6-1989 issued by the Federal Public Service Commission containing the rules for.
Admission to seek C.S.S. Examination, which reads as follows:--
(12) Subject to the Recruitment Policy explained in Appendix III of these Rules, candidates securing the highest places on the combined results of the written examination, psychological and Viva Voce tests and eligible for appointment will be appointed up to the number of vacancies available.
No candidate will, however, be considered for appointment to any of the Groups/Posts to which he/she has been declared unsuitable by the Commission at the time of Viva Voce Test.
(13) Success in the examination confers no right to appointment. Appointments will be made only after the Government are satisfied, after such enquiry as may be necessary, that the candidate is suitable in all respects for appointment to the Public Service and subject to the availability of vacancies.
Note.--Candidates will be considered for those groups/posts only which they give in the application form. No candidate will be considered for the groups/posts which he/she will not mention in the form. The candidates will however, be given a change to revise occupational groups at the time of their Viva Voce Test. Preferences so revised at the time of Viva Voce Test shall be treated as final and no subsequent change will be allowed under any circumstances:
(14) The Government reserves the right to allocate a candidate against any Group/Service irrespective of his/her , preference in the Public interest. No appeal against the decision of the Government will be entertained.
11. A perusal of the above-quoted rule 12 indicates that the candidates who become eligible for appointment are to be appointed up to the number of vacancies available. It may, further, be noticed that the above rule also provides that no candidate will, however, be considered for appointment to any of the groups/posts to which he/she has been declared unsuitable by the Commission at the time of Viva Voce Test.
12. It may, further, be noticed that rule 13 makes it clear that success in the examination confers no right to appointment but the appointments are to be made after Government are satisfied after such enquiry as may be necessary that the candidate is suitable in all respect for appointment of Public Service and subject to availability of vacancies. It may also be noticed that the note to the above rule 13 makes it clear that the groups/posts indicated by the candidates at the time of Viva Voce Test shall be treated as final and no subsequent change will be allowed under any circumstances.
It may also be stated that rule 14 provides that the Government reserves the right to allocate a 'candidate against any group/services irrespective of his/her performance in the public interest and that no appeal against the decision of the Government will be entertained. This rule indicates that the Government normally will allocate a candidate the group which he is entitled to on merits as per recommendation of Public Service Commission but in the Public interest the Government may allocate some other group. In other words, if Public interest is not involved a candidate can claim that he should be allocated same Service Group, which he is entitled to as per recommendations of the Public Service Commission. Of course it will be subject to above rule 13.
The Tribunal has ordered restoration of the reallocated Service Groups to respondent No. 3 in the above three petitions for the reason that above respondents had completed their trainings for the reallocated groups and because of that the Government was not competent to recall the order in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Raja Muhammad Nawaz v. Government of Punjab 1981 SCM R 523.
In our view, the above-quoted memorandum dated ?4-4-1990 is a step in the right direction. A change of service group after having opted to join a particular Service Group is not desirable for smooth functioning of the Government departments. It not only causes wastage of public money on the training of the officer concerned, but also causes heart burning among his colleagues.
Leave is accordingly refused