' MUHAMMAD BASHIR JEHANGIRI, J.---The above four identical petitions for special leave to appeal are directed against a common judgment, dated 22-9-1998, dismissing Appeals Nos.328 of 1997 to 331 of 1997 by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar (hereinafter called as the Tribunal) which were separately filed by the four petitioners herein.
2. The four petitioners were appointed as Junior Clerks on 19-6-1996. On completion of formalities prescribed under the Rules, they reported their arrival on 24-4-1996 (F.N.) in the Office of Assistant Director Livestock and Dairy. Development Department, Mansehra. They were performing duties when all of a sudden their services were terminated on 4-2-1997 by respondent No.2 on the ground that their appointments were found illegal, ab initio void and against the prescribed Rules". They filed appeals for their reinstatement in service before respondent No.1 but to no avail as the same were rejected. All the four petitioners, therefore, filed appeals before the Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioners was that they were appointed by respondent No.2 who was competent authority; that no irregularity has been committed in their appointments; that they possessed the requisite qualifications for the posts of Junior Clerk; that the petitioners could not be punished for any act of omission or commission of the respondents, if any, and; that they had been condemned unheard.
3. In their parawise comments before the Service Tribunal, the respondents pleaded that the constitution of the Departmental Appointment Committee was contrary to the Notification issued by the Government of N.-W.F.P., S&GAD (Regulation Wing) No. SOR I (S&GAD)4-1/25, dated 17-6- 1989; that the selection of the candidates was made on the directives of the Minister for Livestock and Dairy Development Department and not on merits; that the Government of N.-W.F.P. Vide letter dated 2-2-1997 "asked for termination of services of those employees who were irregularly appointed and in compliance whereof the services of the petitioners were terminated which was a legal step taken in pursuance of the terms and conditions of appointments and; that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had never "admitted the fact that the appointments of the petitioners were in accordance with the Rules, therefore, the impugned order dated 4-2-1997 was in the light of the said directives".
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal reached the conclusion "that the selection of the petitioners was not made on merits; that their applications for appointment were entertained after the last date fixed for the receipt of applications; that merit was flouted and the codal formalities were not adopted; that the order of Ex-Minister Livestock and Dairy Development Department were blindly followed ignoring the deserving candidate and; that all this rendered the whole exercise of selection dubious as it was made against the Rules and all the canons of justice and fair play. Their appeals were thus dismissed.
5. Mr. Muhammad Jamil Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court in support of the petitions, contended before us that the petitioners had been appointed after observing all the necessary codal formalities of advertising the posts in the leading newspapers and holding of the interview by the Departmental Appointment Committee for selection of eligible candidates. According to the learned counsel, the respondents had themselves first made the appointments and later on they had turned around and pleaded that the appointments were illegal, ab initio void and violative of the codal formalities. In this context the learned counsel placed reliance on the principal enunciated by this Court in the case of Director, Social Welfare Department, Peshawar v. Saddullah Khan (1996 SCM R 1350). The learned counsel further submitted that in the order, dated 4-2-1997 terminating the services of the petitioner, the Section Officer (Admn.) of the Department recommend to the S&GAD in the Government of N.-W.F.P. To allow the petitioners to continue in service from the date of termination and had also observed therein that "the appointments of the petitioners were made after observing the codal formalities". In this context the learned counsel invited our attention to the following two letters:--
(i) Letter No.271, dated 17-3-1997 addressed by the Project Direfctor/Principal Animal Husbandry In service Training Institute, Peshawar, to the Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Food, Agriculture Livestock and Cooperative Department, in para. 2 whereof it had been conceded in terms unequivocal that the petitioners had been appointed "after observing the laid down codal formalities".
(ii) Letter No.SOG(AD) 1-2/ Ehtesab, dated 21-3-1997 addressed by Section Officer (Admn.) in the Government of N.W.F.P. Agriculture Department to the Deputy Secretary in the Government of N.W.F.P. (Services) S&GAD that employees may be allowed to continue in service with effect from 4- 2-1997 when their services were terminated."
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners we are inclined to grant leave in these petitions to consider whether the impugned orders of termination of the services of the petitioners, dated 4-2-1997, in the factual background of, the case, were not sustainable in view of letter No.271, dated 17-3-1997 addressed by the Project Director/s Principal, Animal Husbandry In service Training Institute, Peshawar, and No.SOG(AD)1-2/Ihtesab, dated 21-3-1997 issued by the Section Officer (Admn.) Agriculture Department, Government of N.-W.F.P. To the Deputy Secretary (Services), Government of N.-W.F.P. S & GAD and the law laid down by this Court in the case of Director, Social Welfare Department, Government of N.-W.F.P. v. Sadullah Khan (1996 SCM R 1350).