livelawpk.com - Vacancies created by Termination must be filled ---

Vacancies created by Termination must be filled through Fresh Recruitment, not by Waiting List Candidates --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

1 week, 6 days
22

Vacancies created by Termination must be filled through Fresh Recruitment, not by Waiting List Candidates --- Lahore High Court, Lahore

Islamabad 26-12-2024: The Lahore High Court has dismissed a constitutional petition filed by Babar Sultan challenging the rejection of his claim for appointment as SSE (Engineer) following the termination of a previously appointed candidate under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline, and Accountability Act, 2006 (PEEDA Act).

The petitioner, who ranked fifth in the merit list for four advertised posts of Secondary School Educators (Engineer) in Tehsil Arifwala, sought appointment after the services of Usman Farid Chishti, one of the appointees, were terminated under Section 4(b)(v) of the PEEDA Act. The petitioner argued that he was entitled to the vacant post as the next candidate on the merit list.

The petitioner contended that under Clause ix of the Recruitment Policy, 2011, a vacancy created by the termination of a selected candidate should be offered to the next person on the merit list. Relying on precedents like Government of Punjab Vs. Asad Abbas (2022 SCMR 739) and Dr. Sumera Tabassum Vs. FPSC (2016 SCMR 196), he argued that the policy’s 190-day limitation should not bar his appointment.

On the other hand, the respondents argued that once a candidate has been appointed and joined, a subsequent termination does not create a vacancy for waiting list candidates. They asserted that such posts must be filled through a fresh recruitment process, in line with the Recruitment Policy and relevant approvals.

Mr. Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh ruled that Clause ix of the Recruitment Policy, 2011, governs appointments from the waiting list only in cases of non-joining, written refusal, or voluntary resignation within 190 days. The Court emphasized that termination under the PEEDA Act does not fall within these categories.

The judgment clarified that a dismissal under the PEEDA Act carries a legal stigma and the post cannot be considered vacant until the dismissal attains finality through all relevant forums. Consequently, the petitioner’s reliance on case law such as Asad Abbas and Sumera Tabassum was found to be misplaced, as those cases involved voluntary resignations or non-joining of appointees.

The Court highlighted that posts rendered vacant due to dismissals under the PEEDA Act must be filled through a fresh recruitment process, ensuring fairness and compliance with the recruitment policy. It rejected the notion that the petitioner had an automatic entitlement to the position.

The petition was dismissed as meritless, upholding the respondents’ stance that the petitioner could not claim the post under the existing legal and policy framework.