SHEIKH LUTFUR REHMAN, J.- Jameel Ahmed, through this Constitutional petition, challenged the vires and legality of the order dated 1-3- 1997, whereby his services were terminated.
2. The-brief facts of the matter, as alleged by the petitioner, are that the Town Committee, Khairpur Tamewali (respondent No. 2) invited applications for the post of Octroi Clerk and he applied for the same. After following the procedure and on the recommendations of the Recruitment Committee he was appointed Octroi Clerk on temporary basis vide Order No.753, dated 24-12-1995. Thereafter, on 1-3-1997, his services were terminated without any reason and legal justification, which necessitated the filing of this Constitutional petition.
3. The respondents in the para wise comments categorically denied all the material allegations and maintained that neither the vacant posts were advertised nor applications were invited for filling the same. On the contrary, the petitioner had submitted an application for the post of Chungi Moharrir duly recommended by the MPA PP.-223 (an MPA in the then Government of Pakistan Peoples Party) and in view of the said recommendations the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis as a stop-gap arrangements. It was also denied that any recruitment committee had considered the case of the petitioner and has recommended him for appointment.
4. The leamed counsel for the petitioner, while arguing about the maintainability of the Constitutional petition, submitted that the termination of services of the petitioner without issuing him any show-cause notice amounted to condemning him unheard and thus the termination order having been passed in violation of the principle of natural justice could be challenged through a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. In this regard he cited the following cases.
(i) Tahir Mehmood Versus Town Committee, Fortabbas, etc. (199$ T.D. (Service) 187).
(ii) Muhammad- Aslam and others Versus Government of the Punjab and others (1995 P.L.C. (C.S.)
419), and
(iii) Nur Muhammad Versus Deputy Commissioner/Controlling Authority, D.G.Khan and others (1992 P.L.C. (C.S.) 368).
5. I am afraid, the contentions of the leamed counsel are absolutely without any force and, in fact, misconceived. The real question which needs adjudication is not the violation of any principle of natural justice, but is whether a person' appointed through back door at the instance of an MPA can invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction for continuance of his appointment in service. The simple answer is no. Such appointments are ab initio irregular, illegal and void and no order which has no legal basis can be enforced or legalised through Courts. Thus irregular appointments, temporary or permanent, obtained without publicly and properly advertising the vacancies by ignoring and violating the prescribed rules and procedure are violative of Fundamental Rights which guaranteed freedom of profession to every citizen and alike treatment to every citizen similarly placed or situated. (Articles 18 and 25 of the Constitution). The Courts cannot bless the irregular or illegal orders to become perpetual or permanent. Such orders instead of endorsing with seal of approval should be struck down at the earliest.
6. In the case of Abdul Jabbar Memon and others (1996 S.C.M.R. 1349) the apex Court disapproved the appointments being made without following the prescribed procedure in the following words:- "While inquiring into various complaints of violation of Fundamental/Human Rights, it has been found that the Federal Government/Provincial Governments, Statutory Bodies and the Public Authorities have been making initial recruitments, both ad hoc and regular, to posts and offices without publicly and properly advertising the vacancies and at times by converting ad hoc appointments into regular appointments. This practice is prima facie violative of Fundamental Rights (Article 18 of the Constitution) guaranteeing to every citizen freedom of profession.
Subject to notice to all concerned, and subject to final orders after full hearing in the matter, it is ordered as an interim measure that the violation , of this Fundamental/Human Right shall be discontinued forthwith.
Steps shall immediately be taken to rectify, so as to bring the practice in accord with the Constitutional requirement."
7. The appointments made on political recommendations were declared illegal ab initio in the case of Abdul Rashid Versus Riazuddin and others (1995 S.C.M.R. 999). The relevant para is as under:- "Similar question as involved in the present petition, came up for consideration in Munawar Khan V.
Niaz Muhammad and others (1993 SCMR 1287) where it was held that "allocation of such quotas to the Ministers/MNAs/MPAs and appointments made thereunder are all illegal, ab initio and have to be held so by all Courts, Tribunals and authorities". The appointment made on the recommendation of M.P.A, was held to be void ab initio and illegal and while allowing appeal the order of appointment of the appellant was restored; In the facts and circumstances of the case, for doing complete justice, we refuse- to grant leave.
12. The Supreme Court in the case of I.A. Sherwani and others Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division, Islamabad and others (1991 S.C.M.R. 1041) laid down the principles with regard to the equal protection of law and reasonableness of classification, inter alia, as follows:-
(i) that equal protection of law does not envisage that every citizen is to be treated alike in all circumstances, but it contemplates that persons similarly situated or similarly placed are to be treated alike;
(ii) .................................................................................................................................. (iii) ................................................................................................................................. (iv)................................... ....................................................... ..................................... (v) that a law applying to one person or one class of persons may be constitutionally valid if there is sufficient basis or reason for it, but a classification which is arbitrary and is not founded on any rational basis is no classification as to warrant its exclusion from the mischief of Article 25;
(vi) that equal protection of law means that all persons equally placed be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed;
(vii) ................................................................................................................................
13. The petitioner was appointed on temporary basis as a stop gap arrangement on the recommendation of an MPA. He never applied for any post according to the rules and procedure. He was never interviewed by any recruitment committee or appointing authority and, therefore, there was no question of being recommended by any such committee. His appointment was purely on temporary basis as a stop gap arrangement in compliance to the wishes of a parliamentarian to whom the petitioner happened to approach directly or through someone. Surprisingly, after the recommendation, the whole process of appointment was completed in no time. The word "recommended" had such a dynamic force that right from Administrator to Head Clerk, for of them, made nothing in line with the wishes of the MPA and the appointment letter was out the same day. His services were terminated at a later stage in accordance with the Government policy to review all such cases of irregular appointments in the light of the observations made by the Supreme Court in this regard. No injustice has been done to the petitioner. In fact, an illegality has been discontinued. The petitioner is not entitled to get the initially illegal order enforced through a Constitutional petition. The appointment of the petitioner was politically motivated and the Court cannot become instrumental in regularising the same. The rulings cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner have no relevance at all to the facts of the case in hand.
In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed in limine being not maintainable.