' AJMAL MIAN, J.---By this common order we intend to dispose of the above two petitions for leave to appeal, which are directed against the judgments dated 24-10-1995 passed by the learned N.- W.F.P. Service Tribunal (hereinfter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No,387 of 1995 filed by petitioner Muhammad Zarin in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,644 of 1995 and Appeal No,385 of 1995 filed by petitioner Bakht Boidar in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,645 of 1995 against the termination of their services while they were on probation. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
2. The brief facts are that petitioner Muhammad Zarin was appointed on or about 24-1-1995 as a Laboratory Attendant whereas petitioner Bakht Boidar was appointed on 1-2-1995 as Naib-Qasid in the Government Higher Secondary School, Shahpur, both in Grade-1. It is argued that while they were on probation their services were terminated and in their place the private respondents at the behest of a Provincial Minister were taken in service. The petitioners thereupon filed the above appeals before the Tribunal. In the memo. Of appeals the petitioners had not only prayed for setting aside the above termination orders of their services but had also prayed for setting aside the appointments of the private respondents on the ground of violation of recruitment rules.
However, the Tribunal dismissed both the appeals on the basis of the reasons recorded in Appeal No,385 of 1995.
3. In support of the above two petitions Mr. Qazi M. Anwar, learned Senior Advocate Supreme Court, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that no doubt the petitioners were also appointed directly without any advertisement as required by the recruitment rules and that their services were terminated while they were on probation, but the Tribunal was obliged to examine the question whether the private respondents could have been allowed to continue in service, though admittedly they were recruited in violation of the recruitment rules and contrary to the law enunciated by this Court in the case of Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad and 7 others (1993 SCM R 1287) in which, inter alia, it has been held that direct appointment without advertisement is in violation of the recruitment rules and, therefore, is not permissible.
4. We are not inclined to grant leave to consider the question whether the Tribunal has rightly declined the relief of reinstatement to the petitioners as admittedly they were employed in violation of the recruitment rules and their services were terminated while on probation and hence no exception can be taken. However, we are inclined to grant leave to consider the question, whether the tribunal was bound to examine the legality of the appointments of the respondents in view of the above judgment of this Court and the relevant recruitment rules.
Leave is accordingly granted.