' NAZAR MUHAMMAD SHAIKH (MEMBER).---Appellant feeling aggrieved from the termination order dated 21-5-1998 has filed this appeal under section 4 read with section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Appellant filed belated departmental appeal on 11-6-1998, the respondents vide their letter dated 13-8-1998 rejected the same.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant passed her M.B.,B.S. Examination from University of Sindh in 1989. She was appointed as Lady Medical Officer by the respondents vide their letter dated 27-3-1995 and her services were confirmed vide respondents' order dated 5-12-1995. Her appointment was terminated by the respondents vide impugned order dated 21-5-1998.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued the appeal and contended that the appellant was appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure after going through the selection process which included interview through Selection Committee and that after completion of probationary period her services were confirmed as there was no adverse report on her performance. He further argued that neither any show-cause notice was issued nor any opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to her which was in gross violation of principle of natural justice and in disregard of many rulings of apex Court. He further argued that before termination the appellant was put in surplus pool by the respondents. Appellant's services were subsequently terminated as the respondents were predetermined to get rid of the appellant. He furthur argued that the appellant's termination was not justified as after the termination of the appellant, the respondent-Organization has appointed many other Lady Medical Officers.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the appeal and contended that the appellant has not filed departmental appeal in accordance with. PIAC Serviced Regulations 1985.
He further argued that the appellant had not been appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The appellant had submitted an application for employment as Lady Medical Officer to the then Prime Minister, whose Secretariat had recommended that she may be accommodated.
He further maintained that record also shows that there was no advertisement by the respondents to invite application for the post of Lady Medical Officer. He also contended that the appellant was overage by five years and seven months and that appointment was made in violation of the rules resulting in avoidable financial burden on the respondents. Learned counsel further pointed out that the respondents have recruited subsequently Lady Medical Officers in accordance with the rules and the appellant cannot cite those cases as of any help to her. He further cited a judgment of FST in Appeal No,1528(K)198 in the case of Riaz Ahmed Shahid v. PIAC Which contained identical facts and the appeal was dismissed by the FST. Learned counsel in support of his contentions cited Supreme Court's decisions reported in 1996 SCMR 273, 1994 PLC (CS) 755, PLD 1990 SC 692, 1984 SCMR 740 and 1998 PLC (CS) 800.
5. We have heard the arguments from both sides and perused the record and citations carefully.
6. The fact that the appellant was appointed on the recommendations of Prime Minister's Secretariat is undoubtedly correct and has also been conceded by the appellant. She contended that her appointment was regular as she was interviewed by the Selection Committee does no ipso facto make the appointment as valid. It is also now an established that the Organization recruiting people do not interview the prospective candidates till they advertise or they are forced under orders of the very powerful authority to consider any candidate. The fact that the appellant was overage is a factor which lends credence to the respondents' contention that she was appointed in violation of the rules. The citation of Supreme Court's rulings and FST's judgment referred to above also further strengthened the respondents' contention that the appointment of the appellant could not be considered as legal and maintainable. Appellant's contention that others have been appointed subsequent to her termination does not help the appellant to establish her own claim for reinstatement. Appellant was issued a show-caust notice and afforded personal hearing which indicates that the appellant was finally terminated in accordance with the prescribed rules.
7. The objection of the respondents that the appeal is badly hit by limitation is absolutely correct as the appellant has filed this appeal belatedly before the Tribunal as she was sent her rejection letter on 13-08-1998 through registered post, and she should have filed appeal within thirty days whereas she approached the Tribunal on 21-11-1998 without any request for condonation of delay. No justification has been submitted for filing the appeal late.
8. In view of the above circumstances, we find that the appeal is not maintainable both on grounds of merit as well as limitation and is, therefore dismissed.
9. Parties be informed accordingly and we leave the parties to bear their own costs.