MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, PESHAWAR appointment

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, PESHAWAR appointment---Transparency and competitive process---appointments of any nature, whether initial or ad hoc, permanent or temporary, if made in violation of the principle of transparency and competitive process, inter alia, without inviting applications from the public is in violation of the Constitution and are, therefore, void. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 139 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, PESHAWAR appointment---Selection of candidates---Principles---Selecting a qualified, eligible and most deserving person is a sacred trust which is to be discharged honestly and fairly in a just and transparent manner and in the best interest of the public. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 139 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case MUHAMMAD SULEMAN VS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, PESHAWAR Ss. 2(b), 2(c), 2(d) & 3--- Employee not appointed by the Government or Government department--- Eligibility for regularization---Petitioner had not been appointed through a competitive transparent process---Moreover, the appointment was made by the Principal of the (Government) College against a fixed remuneration paid from the Agency Development Fund---Appointment had not been made by the "Government" nor a "Government Department" as defined under clauses 'c' and 'd' of section 2 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 ('Act of 2009')---Expression 'employee' has been defined in clause 'b' of the Act of 2009 as meaning an ad hoc or a contract employee appointed by the Government on ad hoc or contract basis or second shift/night shift but excluded the employees of project post or appointed on work charge basis or who were paid out of contingencies---Petitioner, therefore, did not fall within the definition of the expression 'employee' for the purposes of section 3 of the Act of 2009---Petitioner was not eligible to be regularized under the Act of 2009---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

MUHAMMAD SULEMAN vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, PESHAWAR appointment — 2024 PLC(CS) 139 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC