1. DR. GHOUS MUHAMMAD, J.---The petitioners in the above petitions who were appointed as Excise Inspectors, Junior Clerks and Excise Constables as per details given herein below, have called in question the order dated 23-8-1995 passed by the Government of Sind, Excise and Taxation Department, Karachi and the order dated 27-8-1995 passed by the Director, Excise and Taxation, Hyderabad whereby their services have been terminated. The particulars of the petitioners are detailed below as under:-- (EXCISE AND TAXATION INSPECTORS)
2. S. No. NamesDate of Appointment 1.Attaullah Jagsi23-12-1991.
3. 2.Syed Hussain Shah19-7-1991.
4. 3.Ashique Ali25-5-1992.
5. (a)Muhammad Anwar18-12-1991 4.Sarwan Kumar13-1-1992 5.Partab Rai14-12-1991
6. Ghulam Hussain1-2-5-1992 (JUNIOR CLERKS)
7. Nazir Ahmed4-3-1992 (a)Muhammad Ali3-3-1992.
6. (b)Mushtaque Ahmed27-2-1992.
7. 8.Mashooque Ali23-4-1992.
8. 9.Aijaz Ali17-6-1992 10.Muhammad Khan23-4-1992 11.Muhammad Ali26-5--1992 12.Mujeebur Rehman4-3-1992.
9. 13.Mumtaz Ali25-1-1992 (EXCISE CONSTABLES)
14. Mushtaque Ahmed18-10-1992 15.Manzoor Ali4-3-1992 16.Muhammad Usman3-3-1992, (a)Rafique Ahmed11-3-1992.
10. 17.Dilbar23-of 1992 (a). Muhammad Zafar25-7-1992.
11. 18.Muhammad Younus18-7-1992 19.Zulfikar Ali9-3-1992 (a).Deedar Ali3-3-1992 20.Deedar Ali Mangi11-4-1992 (a).Anwar Ali3-3-1992 21.Irshad Ali16-2-1992 22.Muhammad Paryal1-9-1991.
12. (a).Sikander Ali30-1-1992 23.Irshad Ali16-2-1992 24.Karam Ali18-2-1992.
13. 25.Abdul Latif3-1-1992.
14. 26.Abdullah23-2-1992.
2. According to the petitioners at serial Nos. 1 to 7 above, their appointments were made against existing vacancies and after completion of training and other formalities they were posted at different stations in Hyderabad Division. They further claimed that after having performed the duties for a long the, they could not be termed to be ad hoc appointees and thus termination of their services without any show-cause notice was illegal.
15. 3.Petitioners at serial Nos. 8 to 26 have also more or less taken similar pleas but according to them they were given to understand by the Department that their services have been regularized.
16. However, petitioners Nos. 6-, 14, 22, 23(a) to 26 submitted that since they were appointed on regular basis they could not be treated as ad hoc appointees.
17. 4.In the comments filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been specifically stated that the alleged appointments were made on ad hoc basis without recommendations by the Departmental Selection Committee as is required by the law. The services of the petitioners were never regularized by any competent Authority nor they were given any assurance by the respondents that their services were deemed to have been regularized. Beside this, the respondents have also questioned the maintainability of the present petitions under the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court as according to them the petitioners could have approached the higher authorities or the Service Tribunal for the remedy. It is also pleaded that petitioners' appointments being on ad hoc basis, no show-cause notice was necessary.
18. 5.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate-General for the respondents and have perused the record.
19. 6.In support of termination of the petitioner's services reliance was placed on rule 11 of the Sind Civil Servants (Appointment, Transfer and Promotion) Rules, 1974 which is reproduced as under: "11. Initial appointment to posts in Grades 3 to 15 shall be made on the recommendations of the Departmental Selection Committee after the vacancies in these grades have been advertised in newspapers."
20. Petitioner at serial No. 6 claims regular appointment on the basis of the following Notification: "NO. SO (ADMN-II) E&T/3(212)/92 GOVERNMENT OF SINDH EXCISE AND TAXATION DEPARTMENT KARACHI, dated the 14th December, 1992.
21. With the approval of Competent Authority, Mr. Partab R.I S/o Chaman Das is hereby offered, in relaxation of recruitment procedure, the post of Excise and Taxation Inspector (B-14) against the newly created post in Hyderabad Division, on the following terms and conditions subject to the production of original B.A. Degree:-- (1)He will draw pay ..................
22. (2)He will produce the following certificates before joining duty (a)
23. (b)
24. (c)
25. (d)
26. (e)
27. (g)
28. (3)His services are liable to termination without assigning any reason or notice.
29. If the offer is acceptable on the above terms and conditions Mr. Partab R.I should submit his acceptance report to Secretary, Excise and Taxation, Government of Sind, Karachi, within seven days from the date of issue of Medical Fitness Certificate, failing which the offer will be treated as cancelled.
30. (Sd.)
31. Secretary to Government of Sind. "
32. The petitioner at serial No. 14 claims his regularisation on the basis of Notification/Order dated 15- 2-1992 which is as follows: "DIRECTORATE OF EXCISE AND TAXATION HYDERABAD REGION, HYDERABAD No. Estt/-1052/92 Hyderabad, dated 3 March, 1992
33. As per instructions of the Hon'ble Minister, Excise and Taxation, Sind, Karachi, the services of Mr. Mumtaz Ali Bughio s/o Muhammad Bux Bughio, appointed as Junior Clerk, against the leave vacancy, vide this Directorate Order No. Estt: 403 of 1992, dated 25th January, 1992, in the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Mirpurkhas, is hereby regularized and posted in the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Dadu, against newly created vacancy in Hyderabad Division, vide Secretary to Government of Sind, Excise and Taxation Department, Karachi Order No. SO(ADMN)/E&T/B-6 (109)/91, dated 15-2-1992.
34. (Sd.)"
35. The petitioners in the category of Excise Constables S. Nos. 22, 23(a) to 26 on the basis of Notification/Order dated 16-11-1991 claimed regularisation, which reads as under:-- "DIRECTORATE OF EXCISE AND TAXATION HYDERABAD REGION, HYDERABAD No. ESTT/728 of 1992 HYDERABAD dated 16th February, 1992.
36. As per instructions of the Minister, Excise and Taxation Sind, Karachi, the services of Syed Irshad Ali s/o Syed Imtiaz Ali, appointed as Excise and Taxation Constable against the leave vacancy vide this Directorate Order No. Estt/589, dated 8-2-1992 in the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer, III Hyderabad is hereby regularised and posted in the Office of the Divisional Intelligence Office, Excise and Taxation Department, Hyderabad against the newly created vacancy vide Finance Department Notification/Order No. SO(ADMN)/E&T/B-6(109)/91, dated 16-11--1991 communicated to this office vide Secretary to Government of Sind Excise and Taxation Department vide his Letter No. SO(ADMN)/E&T/14(8)/82-ESTT: dated 24-12-1991.
37. (Sd.)
38. Director, E&T Hyderabad."
39. 7.Without going into the question of the applicability of Rule 11 and the interpretation of these notifications we would restrict ourselves to the arguments of Mr. Jhamat Jethanand, learned counsel for the petitioners. His arguments were adopted by all the learned counsel appearing for other petitioners.
40. 8.Mr. Jhamat Jethanand has placed reliance upon a number of decisions to substantiate his plea that the terminations without service of show-cause notices are bad in law. The decisions cited by him are:- (i)Yousuf Ali v. Government of Punjab and others 1996 PLC (C.S.) 801.
41. (ii)Muhammad Latif. Khaukhar v. Chairman, Development Authority, Muzaffarabad and another 1992 CLC 2243.
42. (i.e)Mushtaq Ahmed Aleem v. Government of Pakistan 1992 PLC (C.S.) 558.
43. (iv)Altaf Ahmed Hafeez v. Karachi Port Trust through Chairman, Board of Trustees, Karachi and another 1993 PLC (C.S.) 1234.
44. (v)Muhammad Shahbaz Anwar and 20 others v. Government of Punjab through Secretary, SGA & Information Department, Lahore and 4 others 1993 PLC (C.S:) 1373. , (vi)Muhammad Hussain v. Chairman, Municipal Committee, Kamali and others 1994 PLC (C.S.) 793.
45. (vii)S. Irshadur Rehman v. Government of Pakistan through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue and 3 others 1993 PLC (C.S.) 39.
46. (viii)Nasir Ahmed v. District Education Officer and others 1994 PLC (C.S.) 807.
47. (ix)The Regional Commissioner of Income-tax Central Region, Lahore and others v. Zafar Hussain and others PLD 1992 SC 869.
48. (x)Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah and another PLD 1969 SC 407.
49. (xi)Mrs. Anisa Rehman v. P .A.C. And another 1994 SCMR 2232 9.The decision reported in PLD 1992 SC 869 is a leave granting order to the question as to whether ad hoc employees/civil servants can maintain a Constitutional petition against their termination despite the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution. The said judgment is only a leave granting order and does not support the case of the petitioners.
50. 10.In 1993 PLC (C.S.) 1373 and 1994 PLC (C.S.) 807 the Court remanded the matter to see whether the appointments were in order in the first place. In 1993 PLC (C.S.) 1234 the question pertained to K.P.T.
51. Employees it was held in this case that termination ought to have been in consonance with the service rules. In 1994 PLC (C.S.) 793 the matter concerned premature retirement. These hardly advance the case of the petitioners other cases cited by the petitioner's learned counsel support the contention that once an employee is appointed he derives a vested right and cannot be terminated without a show cause (see PLJ 1996 Lahore 855; 1992 CLC 2243; 1992 PLC (C.S.) 558).
52. This principle was extended to fixation of salary in PLD 1969 SC 407. There can be no cavil with this proposition but we are of the view that the said principle of law is not available to ad hoc employees. In all the cases cited by the petitioner's learners counsel the employees were regular employees. Some of the petitioners have alleged that they were regular employees which is disputed by the Department. If this was the focus of the controversy we would have taken the pains to resolve this controversy and scrutinized the application of Mrs. Anisa Rehman and another v.
53. P.I.A.C. 1994 SCMR 2232 to ad hoc employees. However, the main focus of these petitions revolve round the Constitutional bar under Article 212.
54. 11.The applicability of Article 212 has been elaborately dealt with in 1993 PLC (C.S.) 39 wherein it has been held that the bar under Article 212 applies where:--- (i)the petitioner is a civil servant; and (ii)the matter concerns the terms and conditions of service 12.Admittedly the petitioners are civil servants, and the aspect of termination, even if unlawful, concerns the terms and conditions of service. Therefore, Anisa Rehman does not come to the rescue of the petitioners since the case concerned employment in a statutory corporation i.e. P.I.A.C. To which Article 212 does not apply.
55. 13.Accordingly, we find the petitions to be barred under Article 212, which are thus dismissed. Before parting we would like to observe that the petitioners may approach the relevant authorities or forums for relief. In this regard the limitation period shall be deemed to commence from the date of this judgment. This observation is being made in the interest of justice.