' MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN (MEMBER).---The appellant and Raja Haq Nawaz, Advocate, for respondent No,4 are present and have been heard and record perused while Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, Standing Counsel, for respondents Nos.1 to 3 was present in the morning but with permission of the Court, had left to attend other judicial matters pending before the High Court Sindh and while leaving the Court stated at the bar that he would rely on the parawise comments having already been filed and are available on the file.
2. The brief facts of the appeal are that the appellant while posted as Senior Auditor under the Directorate of Commercial Audit, Karachi, respondent No,3, was appointed as Management Trainee by the P.S.O. By order, dated 19th March, 1996, with effect from 1-5-1996 vide copy available at page 31, Annexure-A/2, inter alia, with the following terms and conditions:-- "1. That during the training period you shall receive a fixed stipend of Rs,4,000 per month. Please note hat the Talent Pool Scheme does not entitle the Management Trainee for a regular job/service in the company. Your appointment as a regular employee in the company's service shall depend entirely on the discretion of the company and subject to your performance evaluation during the stipulated training period of two years (maximum) and on existence of suitable vacancy. Kindly note that your employment may be terminated at any time without any notice, should your performance during training period be considered unsatisfactory by the Company.
' During the training period you shall not be entitled to any kind of leave i,e, Casual/Sick Leave etc."
(3) GENERAL (CONDITIONS)
(a) to (e) being not relevant to the disposal of the appeal are not reproduced over here.
3. It is to observe that the appellant was appointed as Senior Auditor (B-11) under respondent No,3 i,e, the Director, Commercial Audit, Karachi, in the year 1987.
4. The appellant, it is alleged, had applied for retention of his line under the parent organization in case of his selection under the Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd., as Management Trainee and on selection, his request for lien was acceded to but unfortunately his services were terminated, during the training period by the said company, with immediate effect, by order, dated 28th August, 1997 (copy available at page 39 of the appeal file).
5. The appellant placed reliance on the cases reported as 1987 PLC (C.S.) AJ&K 508 and 1992 SCMR 1652 and further stated at the bar that he had acquired a right to revert to his parent Organization having already retained his lien in that Organization by the Competent Authority but regretfully the same are of no avail to him.
6. There are two sets of respondents; the first set is comprising of respondents Nos.1 and 3 i,e, the Organizations wherefrom the appellant had gone to adopt service under the Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd., whereas the second set consists of respondent No,4 (i,e, PSO).
7. The respondents have hotly contested and resisted the appeal. Respondents Nos.1 to 3 have placed reliance on rule 6(2) of the Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules, 1973, relating to termination of lien and sub-rule (2) thereof, is reproduced below, for the sake of convenience: "(2) A civil servant shall cease to hold lien against a post if he takes up an appointment on selection in an autonomous body under the control of Federal Government, Provincial Government, local authority or private organization."
This provision of law being crystal clear and without any ambiguity does not favour the appellant for the reasons that he had himself adopted the service under the Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd., which is a autonomous body under the Federal Government.
8. Now coming to the merits of the appeal, it was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for respondent No,4 (i,e, PSO) that the appellant was totally incompetent but was inducted as Management Trainee due to political interference of the then Government, i,e, on the approach of one Mr. Anwar Saifullah, the then Federal Minister and the Deputy Speaker, National Assembly.
Respondent No,4 has annexed to the parawise comments copies of the Interview Rating Reports wherein the following remarks were recorded by the Interviewers:-- Remarks by the Interviewer (Ms. SALMA)
9. In this report the appellant was rated as "Average". In the first column, i,e, "appearance" while in the column of "Experience in Work applied for" he was rated as: "8 years experience as Senior Auditor in Government Department" whereas in all of the rest columns i,e, "Speech, Reasoning and Judgment. Poise and Maturity and Potential" he has been assessed as "Poor". In the remaining two columns the remarks recorded were as follows:-- {{TABLE}} "Weakness for this Job.
"General Comments Being MA (Ecos.) could not define what Economic is, could not answer any question also very poor in general knowledge."
Not fit for any job. Totally blank, already serving as Senior Auditor for the last 8 years." {{TABLE}} Remarks by the Interviewer (MR. SOHAIL AHMAD)
10. The appellant was assessed by this Interviewer as "Poor" in almost all the columns except Column No,1 i,e, "appearance" where he was rated as "Average". The remarks in the other columns are as under:--{{TABLE}} "Weakness for this Job.
"General Comments. Knows nothing about any subject. Was not able to answer a single question."
Serving in BPS-15 as a Senior Auditor. Not fit even for a non mgl job." {{TABLE}} Remarks by Mr. MUSHTAQ KHAN, INTERVIEWER
11. In his report the Interviewer has rated the appellant as "Average" in three columns i,e, "appearance", "Speech" and "Poise and Maturity" and assessed him "Nil" in one column i,e, "Experience in Work applied for" whereas the other two columns namely, "Reasoning and Judgment" and "Potential" the appellant was assessed as "Poor". The report regarding other three columns read: {{TABLE}} "Strength for this Job. "Weakness for this Job. Experience of service in Audit Department."
Could not answer a single question on any subject i,e, Economics, Statistics, Agricultural Economics."
"General Comments. Totally Blank.
Nil Potential." {{TABLE}} ' All the three Interviewers have, however, not recommended him for employment.
12. Pursuant to the aforesaid discussion and the legal requirements having not been fulfilled and also lacking competence, the appellant appears to have been inducted through political approach as such the relief, as claimed, cannot be extended to him. It is further to state that the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan had taken a serious view in its judgment reported as 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1089 and the Lahore High Court in 1998 PLC (C.S.) 832 regarding the political interference in service matters so, much so that it was observed that the politicians found involved in the affairs of the civil servants could be declared disqualified. The spirit behind this is that the political interference not only disturbs the normal working , of the Governmental organizations but also cultivates political cultures which does not lie in the public interest and frequent political interference adversely affect the smooth functioning of the various Governmental organizations, public interest and the merits as well. Politician have got a definite set of activities as per the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the various enactments, made thereunder.
13. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, this appeals fails and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to been their own costs.
14. However, copies of this judgment shall be sent to the appellant, respondents and all other concerned as required under rule 21(1) of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974.