MR. IJAZ AHMAD CHAUDHRY, J.--- I intend to decide the following writ petitions by one consolidated order having similar facts and law.
W.P. No. 15276-94 W.P. No. 15275-94
2. Brief facts of the both the writ petitions are that petitioners applied for the post of patwaries in pursuance of advertisement published in Daily Jang dated 16.11.1994. Petitioners finally appeared before the Assistant Commissioner Narowal and submitted their applications for the advertised posts being qualified candidates. The interviews were conducted and they were appointed patwaries through appointment letters dated 4.12.1994. Petitioners reported for the duties on the day and subsequently vide letters dated 13.12.1994 they were ordered to take over as patwaries in their respective halqas. Petitioners took over the charge and started their official duties i.e.f.
13.12.1994.
Earlier some patwaries were appointed against existing vacancies on 12.12.1990 but they were not paid their salaries in which writ petition was filed in this Court on 13.4.1994 and those patwaries were informally released of their posts vide order dated 5.5.1994 and on the other hand, the petitioners are fresh recruited patwaries appointed on the posts duly advertised.
Petitioners claim that after their appointments they have been directed vide letters dated 20.5.1994 to surrender their appointment letters. These letters have been challenged through these writ petitions. It has been prayed that the respondents be restrained from removing the petitioners from the posts of patwaries and transferring them from their halqas assigned to them only a fortnight ago.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the prayers made through these writ petitions can be granted by this Court as the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not applicable as no final order has been passed in accordance with law against the petitioners. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been appointed in a lawful manner after following the codel formalities and the orders passed for their appointments have been acted upon when the petitioners have joined their respective halqas and were performing their duties. The respondents are bound to treat them in accordance with law under Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan and they cannot pressurised or directed as had been directed to surrender their appointment letters. No provision of any rule or law authorises the respondents to direct the petitioners to surrender their appointment letters. Their services can be terminated in accordance with law and rules and they cannot be thrown out of service in the manner in which respondents intended to remove .Them by surrendering their appointment letters through the impugned orders. It is contended that the Assistant Commissioner has filed the parawise comments in which it has been admitted that the petitioners were appointed in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the newspaper and after performing all the codel formalities and their appointments have been made after the lifting of the ban. Hence the appointments cannot be said to have been made in an illegal manner even during the pendency of the ban. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners it has become clear that the then Minister of Revenue, Government of Punjab had directed that the appointments should be made after confirmation from him. This confirmation has not been sought from him as the Assistant Commissioner had no knowledge of this letter. The issuance of such letters by the Minister was illegal as he did not fall anywhere in the appointments of the patwari and illegal and unlawful way has been adopted by the respondents to remove the petitioners from service.
4. Learned A.A.-G. Has argued that the petitioners have filed these writ petitions at pre-mature stage and according to him as the Minister has gone no live issue is in these writ petitions; hence these may be dismissed.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the documents attached with these writ petitions. The parawise comments have been filed by the Board of Revenue and the Assistant Commissioner/Appointing Authority. It is not denied that the petitioners have been appointed a Patwaries in pursuance of an advertisement issued in the Daily Jang and after following the codel formalities by the competent authority/Assistant Commissioner and the appointment orders of the petitioners have been acted upon as they joined their respective halqas on 13.12.1994. The issuance of the impugned orders prima facie is without lawful authority and without jurisdiction as if the respondents/competent authority had some intentions to remove from services he had to follow the law and rules prescribed relating to the terms and conditions of a servant and cannot direct the sub ordinates to surrender their appointment letters issued to them.
Hence I feel that there is no doubt that the petitioners were not being treated in accordance with law and the action of the respondents through the impugned letters was violation of Articles 4/25 and 27 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. Board of Revenue has taken a different stand that the appointments were made during the ban imposed by the Government of the Punjab but it has been clarified that the petitioners were appointed after the lifting of ban as the ban was lifted on 30.10.1993 and the petitioners were appointed in 1994. The only reason for the issuance of the impugned letters has been mentioned by the Assistant Commissioner/Appointing Authority that the then Revenue Minister had issued some letters before the appointments that the appointments of patwaries and other officials in the revenue -department shall be made after the approval of the Minister. The Assistant Commissioner is the competent authority has also stated that he was not aware of the letters issued by the then Revenue Minister hence the appointments were made being a competent authority without the approval of the Hon`ble Minister according to him. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are borne out from the comments filed by the Assistant Commissioner that the only reason for issuance of the impugned letters for the surrendering of the appointment letters by the petitioner was that their appointments were not got approved from the then Minister Revenue. I have noticed that the appointing authority of the patwari is the Assistant Commissioner and no other authority can issue any direction to the appointing authority to get approval from him before the making of any appointments. The representatives and the Minister in the Government had the tendency to interfere on each and every matter and to grab the powers of other officials in order to make the appointments of their on workers and of their party men which a number of times has been depreciated by this Court and by the August Supreme Court and in cases reported in 1993 SCM R 1287, in this case it has been held as under:- "As regards the allocation of quota of posts to the local MPAs or MNAs for recruitment to the posts, we find it offensive to the Constitution and the law on the subject. The Ministers, the Members of National and Provincial Assemblies, all are under an oath to discharge their duties in accordance with the Constitution and the law. The service laws designate, in the case of all appointments, a departmental authority competent to make such appointments. His judgment and discretion is to be exercised honestly and objectively in the public interest and cannot be influenced or subordinated to the judgment of anyone else including his superior. In the circumstances, 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."
Further reliance is also placed on a case reported as 1995 SCM R 999. In this case a similar abovesaid view observed. The Ministers could not issue such direction due to the decision above- referred of the Supreme Court and even otherwise their directions are not in accordance with the rules laid down by the Government. Of Punjab hence the issuance of the letter on the direction by the competent authority is illegal and unlawful and is set aside by accepting these writ petitions.