Ensuring Justice in Government Recruitment
لاہور ہائی کورٹ کا فیصلہ: سرکاری بھرتیوں میں انصاف کا تقاضا
پس منظر:
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے 2014 PLC (CS) 1 میں ایک اہم فیصلہ دیا، جس میں سرکاری ملازمین کی بھرتی اور برطرفی کے اصولوں پر روشنی ڈالی گئی۔ یہ کیس عامر جنید بمقابلہ حکومتِ پنجاب کے درمیان تھا، جہاں درخواست گزاروں کو ریونیو ڈیپارٹمنٹ میں بھرتی کے بعد صرف دو ماہ میں برطرف کر دیا گیا تھا، بغیر کسی نوٹس یا صفائی کا موقع دیے۔
عدالتی نکات:
1. قدرتی انصاف کی خلاف ورزی:
عدالت نے آرٹیکل 4، 10-A اور 25 کا حوالہ دیتے ہوئے قرار دیا کہ کسی بھی سرکاری ملازم کو برطرف کرنے سے پہلے اسے سننے کا موقع دینا لازمی ہے۔ درخواست گزاروں کو بغیر کسی قانونی کارروائی کے نوکری سے نکالنا غیر آئینی تھا۔
2. بھرتی کا قانونی جواز:
درخواست گزاروں کو محکمانہ بھرتی کمیٹی نے میرٹ پر منتخب کیا، اور تقرری کے خطوط ایک مجاز افسر نے جاری کیے۔ محض اس بنیاد پر کہ دستخط کرنے والا افسر (DDO) اصل تقرری اتھارٹی (DO) نہیں تھا، بھرتی کو غیر قانونی قرار نہیں دیا جا سکتا۔
3. ریاستی اداروں کی ذمہ داری:
عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ ریاستی ادارے شہریوں کے بنیادی حقوق کے محافظ ہیں اور انہیں بغیر کسی معقول وجہ کے ان کے روزگار سے محروم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔ عدالت نے سرکاری محکموں کو ہدایت دی کہ وہ تقرریوں کو منسوخ کرنے سے پہلے شفاف قانونی طریقہ کار اپنائیں۔
نتیجہ:
عدالت نے برطرفی کے احکامات کالعدم قرار دیے اور ہدایت کی کہ درخواست گزاروں کے کیسز کو دوبارہ قانونی تقاضوں کے مطابق جانچا جائے۔ یہ فیصلہ سرکاری بھرتیوں میں شفافیت اور ملازمین کے حقوق کے تحفظ کے حوالے سے ایک اہم نظیر قائم کرتا ہے۔
نتیجہ: یہ عدالتی فیصلہ اس بات کی یاد دہانی ہے کہ آئین ہر شہری کے حقوق کا محافظ ہے، اور کسی کو بھی بلاجواز روزگار سے محروم نہیں کیا جا سکتا۔
Must read Judgement
Citation Name : 2014 PLC(CS) 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Side Appellant : AAMIR JUNAID
Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary
Arts. 4, 10-A, 25 & 199---Constitutional petition---Revenue Department ---Naib Qasids/Gardeners/Drivers/Telephone Operators/ Watchmen/Junior Clerks, posts of---Appointments on such advertised posts on contract basis through Department al Recruitment Committee---Issuance of appointment letters to petitioners on 7-4-2010 and joining their respective services after having been interviewed and selected by such Committee---Termination of services of petitioners vide order dated 31-5-2010 without notice and personal hearing alleging their appointments having been made without observing codal formalities---Department 's plea was that District Officer (R) was Appointing Authority and due to his going on leave during recruitment process on account of illness of his father, Deputy District Officer (R) had attended such Committee and signed appointment letters of petitioners, thus, DDO(R) could not exercise powers of DO(R) being an appointing authority, which rendered recruitment process irregular and illegal; and that Department had initiated disciplinary proceedings against DDO(R) for his such illegal acts---Validity---Two Members out of five Members of such Committee in their comments filed in Court had conceded to have interviewed petitioners, considered their suitability and recommended their appointments on merits according to contract policy---Nothing was available on record to show issuance of show-cause notice to petitioners or initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them---Record showed that while proceeding on leave, DO(R) being appointing authority had authorised DDO(R) to act in his place and represent him in such Committee, who acted accordingly for being deputized in place of DO(R)---DO(R) had defended his act of delegating powers to DDO(R) and appointments made on his behalf under signatures of DDO(R)---Recruitments, therefore, had been made by a duly appointed Committee, which had owned and defended process of recruitments, whereas issuance of appointment letters to petitioners was merely a formality---Petitioners had no knowledge about working of Government Department s, rather they had acted bonafidely in making applications for recruitment against respective posts---Petitioners after having been selected by such Committee could not be deprived of their accrued valuable rights without due process of law merely on basis of such hyper technical objection of Department and that too in absence of any fault on their part---Petitioners had not been alleged to be unqualified for respective posts etc.---Department was legally and constitutionally obliged to have issued notice to petitioners and provided an opportunity to defend themselves in a meaningful manner, but they had been deprived of their such right without just cause---Petitioners, though appointed on contract basis, were entitled to be treated fairly in terms of Arts.4 & 25 of the Constitution---High Court as guardian of constitutional rights of citizens could interfere in a matter involving denial of such rights to them by State functionaries---Courts would jealously and vigorously guard principles of natural justice, which had been violated by Department ---Record showed that DDO(R) had been exonerated of charges levelled against him in inquiry proceedings regarding appointment of petitioners---High Court set aside impugned termination order while directing Department to re-process cases of petitioners by adopting suggested procedure
Popular articles