KARACHI, Dec 15: The lecturers selected by the Sindh Public Service Commission became ‘appointees’ after the acceptance by them of the education secretary’s offer letters and the provincial government now had no option but to post them and pay them their salaries, a rejoinder filed on behalf of 365 petitioners recommended by the SPSC for appointment as college lecturers said on Monday.
A division bench consisting of Justices Khilji Arif Hussain and Syed Mahmood Alam Rizvi adjourned the hearing of petitions to January 14 to enable an additional advocate-general to submit reply.
The petitioners applied for the vacancies in June 2005 and were finally issued offer letters after qualifying written and viva voce examinations and going through medical test and police verification. They accepted the offer but the education department did not assign them postings despite a large number of vacancies. Eleven of the recommended candidates were, however, posted, according to the petitioners.
The successful candidates approached the high court and the government said in its comments that the chief minister was empowered by the SPSC Act to reject the commission’s recommendations without assigning any reason.
The rejoinder filed by Advocate Shua-un-Nabi on behalf of the petitioners, however, said that under Section 8 of the SPSC Act, the CM must inform the commission of his rejection of its recommendations along with reasons. In the petitioners’ case, leaving aside reasons, no rejection of its recommendations was conveyed to the commission. The posting of 11 candidates on the basis of pick and choose, the rejoinder said, was hit by the constitutional bar against discrimination.
Advocate Zamir Ghumro also appeared for the petitioners and particularly emphasised that the CM was not competent to appoint grade 17 public servants. The appointment has to be made by the secretary of the department concerned, he said.
Contempt notices
A division bench consisting of Justices Amir Hani Muslim and Syed Mahmood Alam Rizvi, meanwhile, issued contempt notices to former chief controller of buildings Rauf Akhtar Farooqui, town municipal officer of Korangi, building control officer of the town and two other officials of the Karachi Building Control Authority for misinterpretation of and non-compliance with a court order.
The bench asked the KBCA counsel, Shahid Jamil Khan, not to represent the alleged contemners. The counsel sought time on behalf of the respondents to enable them to engage lawyers to defend them. The bench accepted the request and fixed January 14 for framing of charge.
PCB plea adjourned
Another division bench consisting of Justices Azizullah M. Memon and Arshad Noor Khan adjourned the hearing of a Pakistan Cricket Board petition questioning a Sindh excise department notice for payment of Rs80 million as a property tax for 104 acres occupied by it.
The board has vehemently contested the demand in a petition moved by it through Advocate Tafazzul H. Rizvi. The petition says that though the PCB was allotted 104 acres, it was given possession only of 45 acres comprised in the National Stadium. The rest of the land was under occupation of the Aga Khan Hospital, the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and others. The PCB has taken legal action to recover the land allotted to it. Besides, the land utilised for raising the stadium should be exempted from the property tax as playgrounds were not liable to be taxed under the law.
Bus terminal
The bench also adjourned the hearing of a petition against acquisition of five acres by the city district government for the Yousuf Goth bus terminal meant for vehicles coming from and going to Balochistan. CDGK counsel Manzoor Ahmed said in his arguments that according to the record, the land belonged to the government and it was required for a public purpose. The claimants had no title to the land, which was not a ‘goth’ under the law.
Auction set aside
Another division bench set aside an ex parte decree passed by a banking court against M/s Amer Enterprises at the instance of the United Bank, which instituted a recovery suit against the concern. The banking court issued a decree for about Rs4.6 million and ordered auction of the concern’s properties to recover the amount.Appearing for the appellant concern, Advocate Saalim Salam Ansari argued that the trial court had wrongly rejected the application for leave to appear to defend as time-barred because the defendant was not properly served in accordance with the law. The bench asked the banking court to decide the application for leave to defend on merit within 30 days.
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.