CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, QUETTA vs ADEEL-UR-REHMAN Contract employees ap

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

CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, QUETTA VS ADEEL-UR-REHMAN Contract employees appointed against project posts---Regularization in service---Scope---As far as the regularization of contract employees subsequent to creation of posts on regular side is concerned, the mere creation of posts on regular side does not confer, in the absence of any statutory support, an automatic right of regularization in favour of the contract employees working against project posts. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 242 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, QUETTA VS ADEEL-UR-REHMAN art. 25---Equality of citizens---Negative equality---Scope---article 25 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality---Such right can only be claimed when decision is taken in accordance with law---Wrong concession in favour of one person does not entitle any other person to claim benefit of a wrong decision. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 242 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, QUETTA VS ADEEL-UR-REHMAN R. 9(1)(a)---Balochistan Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1982, Rr. 3(i)(a) & 3(i)(b)---Contract employees for a project---BPS-16 and above posts---Regularization in service---Case of the Provincial Government/competent authority was that a summary of 43 contract employees into regular service was approved while for BPS-17 and above, the competent authority was not competent to appoint or regularize any contract employee as the same came within the domain of the Balochistan Public Service Commission, however, the High Court incorrectly allowed the writ petition of the respondents (contract employees seeking regularization) purely on the ground of discrimination---Validity---Posts in BPS-16 and above were to be filled through the Public Service Commission---Rule 9(1)(a) of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009 (the AP&T Rules) clearly provides that the appointment to posts in BPS-16 and above or equivalent, if falls within the purview of the Commission, shall be made on the basis of a test and interview to be conducted by the Balochistan Public Service Commission (the Commission)---Similarly, Rule 3(i)(a) of the Balochistan Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1982 (the BPSC Functions Rules), provides that the Commission shall conduct tests and examinations for initial recruitments to civil posts in BPS 16 to 22 connected with the affairs of the province, except those specified in the Schedule appended to the Rules---Sub clause (b) of Rule 3 (i) of the BPSC Functions Rules further empowers the Commission to conduct a test and interview for initial recruitment to any other post which may be referred to it by the Government, which may otherwise not fall within the purview of the Commission---Present respondents fell within the purview of Rule 9(1)(a) of the AP&T Rules and Rules 3(i)(a) and 3(i)(b) of the BPSC Functions Rules---Decision given by the High Court was without any basis and was not sustainable in the eye of law, therefore, the same was set-aside with the directions that the Provincial Government shall refer the posts in question to the Commission for recruitment in accordance with the law through fresh publication on open merit basis; that the respondents shall participate in the fresh recruitment process to be undertaken by the Commission and the Commission shall entertain their applications, and that in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the question, if any, of any age limit shall not be a hurdle in the way of the respondents---Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, QUETTA vs ADEEL-UR-REHMAN Contract employees appointed against project posts — 2024 PLC(CS) 242 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC