[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Jawad Hassan, J
MUHAMMAD AZHAR ABBASI AND MASOOD AHMAD ABBASI---Petitioners
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and others----Respondents
Writ Petition No.3222 of 2021, heard on 11th September, 2023.
(a) Punjab Local Government (Legal Advisers) Rules, 2003---
----R.4---Legal adviser of Local Government on regular basis, appointment of---Procedure---Under Rule 4(1) of the Punjab Local Governments (Legal Advisers) Rules, 2003 ('the Rules'), a local government desirous to engage a legal adviser on regular basis shall invite applications through advertisement at least in two national daily newspapers indicating the requisite qualifications, experience, standing of the advocate and minimum remuneration offered, while under R.4(2) of the Rules the candidates are advised to address their applications to the local government concerned and also forward a copy thereof along with annexures to the Government as defined under R.2(b) of the Rules which means the Government of the Punjab in the Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department---In terms of R. 4(3) of the Rules, the local government as defined under R.2(c) of the Rules shall forward to Government all applications of the candidates along with its recommendations which are placed before the Selection Committee constituted under R. 4(4) of the Rules---Rule 4(5) of the Rules provides that the committee shall approve the name of advocate to be appointed as legal adviser and the remuneration to be paid to him and the said approved advocate by the committee is appointed by the local government concerned on the terms and conditions fixed by the Government.
(b) Punjab Local Government (Legal Advisers) Rules, 2003---
----R. 4---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 5---Legal adviser of Local Government on regular basis, appointment of---Procedure, non-observance of---Right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law, but subject to obedience to the Constitution and law---Scope and effect---Petitioners (practicing advocates) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court with prayer that the respondents (Administrator Municipal Corporation ) be directed to pay arrear as well as current retainership/professional fee to them---Stance of the respondent (Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department)was that no department/body could engage a private advocate without due procedure and in case, an officer had appointed any private advocate, such officer shall be responsible to pay the professional fee from his own pocket and shall also be liable to disciplinary action as per law---Validity ---Admittedly, the appointments of the petitioners had already ended almost two years ago and the same were not formally extended by the authority---Two letters, on the basis of which the petitioners were claiming to be the appointees, as well as other documents revealed that the respondent (Municipal Corporation) invited applications in terms of R. 4(1) of the Punjab Local Government (Legal Advisers) Rules, 2003 ('the Rules') and forwarded the same along with recommendations as per R. 4(3) of the Rules but said recommendations were required to be placed before the Selection Committee in terms of R. 4(4) of the Rules for approval as per R. 4(5)---Pertinently, the respondent (Municipal Corporation) appointed the petitioners at its own without following the procedure provided under the Rules and getting approval from the Competent Authority while he was well aware of the instructions contained in relevant letter (of the year 2016) followed by instructions (issued in the year 2018) issued by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Law and Parliamentary Department---Article 4 of the Constitution guaranteed right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law, but at the same pedestal Art. 5(2) thereof required obedience to the Constitution and law, being the inviolable obligation of every citizen---Record revealed that the petitioners were not ever appointed in due course of law and the letters relied upon by them to establish their alleged appointment at the most might be taken up as only nomination/recommendation for relevant job---When a law described or required a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all---Recommendation or nomination for appointment did not create any vested right until it had been done through proper procedure/mechanism provided under the law which, admittedly in the present case, had not been adopted---High Court passed instruction to the concerned department to initiate disciplinary actions against the respondent (Municipal Corporation Administrator) for giving appointments to the petitioners of his own without following the procedure provided under Punjab Local Governments (Legal Advisers) Rules, 2003---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Muhammad Akbar v. Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Law and Justice (Justice Division), Islamabad through Secretary and another 1996 SCMR 1017; Nazir A. Khan Swati v. Ministry of Law and Justice and others 1998 PLC (C.S) 372; Hadayat Ullah and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2022 SCMR 1991 and Attaullah Khan v. Ali Azam Afridi and others 2023 PLC (C.S) 182 ref.
Petitioner in person.
Ch. Sarfraz Ahmad Chadhar for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
Malik Amjad Ali, Additional Advocate General for Respondent No.3 with Abid Aziz, Assistant Advocate General.
Malik Muhammad Siddique Awan, Additional Attorney General with Arshad Mehmood Malik, Assistant Attorney General.
Comments
Post a Comment