Appointments Statutory Rules have the Force of Law and cannot be displaced by Executive Instructions --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

Islamabad 03-03-2025: The Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, has dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal [ICA No. 296 of 2024] challenging the rejection of his application for the post of Patwari in Tehsil Saddar, Multan. The Court ruled that statutory rules governing public appointments prevail over executive instructions, reinforcing merit-based recruitment and transparency in public service.  

The dispute arose when the Assistant Commissioner, Saddar Multan advertised a Patwari post, limiting eligibility to residents of Tehsil Saddar. The appellant, a resident of Tehsil City, Multan, applied for the post but was declared ineligible based on the Tehsil-specific requirement. His Constitutional Petition [W.P. No. 10689 of 2024] was dismissed by the Single Bench, prompting him to file an Intra-Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972.  

The Appellant’s counsel argued that:  

1. The Board of Revenue’s instructions dated 23.02.2021 mandated district-wide eligibility, making the Tehsil restriction invalid.  
2. These instructions had the effect of rules under Section 23(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and should have been followed.  
3. The Punjab Revenue Department (Revenue Administration Posts) Rules, 2009 did not explicitly state that Patwari posts were Tehsil-specific.  
4. The advertisement was misleading, and the Appellant had a legitimate expectation of appointment after nearly completing the selection process.  

After reviewing the legal provisions and case law precedents, the Lahore High Court upheld the dismissal of the petition, making the following key observations:   

1. The Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 2009, which explicitly prescribe Tehsil-specific recruitment, are binding.  
2. The 2021 Board of Revenue instructions were executive guidelines and could not override statutory rules.  
3. The Court cited Muhammad Yasin Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 132), which establishes that statutory rules have the force of law and cannot be displaced by executive instructions.  
4. The Supreme Court of Pakistan ruling in Punjab Public Service Commission Vs. Husnain Abbas (2021 SCMR 1017) was cited, holding that erroneous job advertisements do not override statutory requirements.   
5. The Appellant had no vested right to the post merely by participating in the selection process.  
6. The Court referred to Secretary Finance Vs. Ghulam Safdar (2005 SCMR 534), which held that candidates have no enforceable right to appointment until they meet all statutory criteria.  
7. Past recruitment mistakes do not create a legal precedent for future violations.  
8. The principle of estoppel cannot be invoked to justify an illegal appointment.  
9. Government jobs must be awarded based on merit, transparency, and statutory compliance.  
10. Suo Motu Action on Sindh Public Service Commission (2017 SCMR 637) was cited, reinforcing that appointments must adhere to constitutional principles.  

The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, declaring it devoid of merit.

Powered by Froala Editor