VICE-CHANCELLOR AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PESHAWAR vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ art — 2024 PLC(CS) 323 SUPREME-COURT

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

VICE-CHANCELLOR AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PESHAWAR VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ art. 25---Civil service---Contractual employees---Regularization in service---Principle of similarly placed employees---Scope---Where a contractual employee wishes to be regularized, he must demonstrate statutory basis for such a claim, in the absence of which, relief cannot be granted solely on the principle of "similarly placed persons"---article 25 of the Constitution has no application to a claim based upon other unlawful acts and illegalities---It comes into operation when some persons are granted a benefit in accordance with law but others, similarly placed and in similar circumstances, are denied that benefit---But where a person gains, or is granted, a benefit illegally, other persons cannot plead, nor can the court accept such a plea, that the same benefit must be allowed to them also in violation of law. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 323 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case VICE-CHANCELLOR AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PESHAWAR VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ Contractual employees---Regularization in service---Principles---Once the contractual services are regularized, the appointment can become substantive or permanent and cannot be terminated without due process---Therefore, the regularization of a contractual employee is a fresh appointment into the stream of regular appointment. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 323 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case VICE-CHANCELLOR AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PESHAWAR VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ Public sector University---Contractual employees---Regularization in service---Policy matter of the University---Non-interference by Courts---Institutional autonomy, concept of---Wisdom behind non-interference of courts in policy matters is based on the concept of institutional autonomy which is defined as a degree of self-governance, necessary for effective decision making by institutions of higher education regarding their academic work, standards, management, and related activities---Institutional autonomy is usually determined by the level of capability and the right of an institution to decide its course of action about institutional policy, planning, financial and staff management, compensation, students, and academic freedom, without interference from outside authorities---Autonomy of public institutions is not just a matter of administrative convenience, but a fundamental requirement for the effective functioning of a democratic society, as public sector organizations are guardians of the public interest---Democracy, human rights and rule of law cannot become and remain a reality unless higher education institutions and staff and students, enjoy academic freedom and institutional autonomy---Courts must sparingly interfere in the internal governance and affairs of educational institutions i.e., contractual employments; this is because the courts are neither equipped with such expertise, nor do they possess the relevant experience that would allow for interference in such policy matters---Under this autonomous realm, educational institutions are entitled to deference when making any decisions related to their mission---At the same time, any transgression by Courts would amount to the usurpation of the power of another, which would be against the spirit of Article 7 of the Constitution as it is not the role of the Courts to interfere in policy decisions. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 323 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case VICE-CHANCELLOR AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PESHAWAR VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ When the basic order is without lawful authority, then the entire superstructure raised thereon falls to the ground automatically. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 323 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case VICE-CHANCELLOR AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PESHAWAR VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ Contractual employees---Regularization in service---Prospective effect---Regularization takes effect prospectively, from the date when a regularization order is passed---This is because regularization is based on several considerations which help guage not only the competence and ability of the employee, proposed to be regularized, but also the financial impact and long term legal obligations on the employer institution---It is a conscious decision to be taken by the employer institution at a particular time and therefore cannot be given a retrospective effect. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 323 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case VICE-CHANCELLOR AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PESHAWAR VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ Contractual employees---Regularization in service---Parameters for regularization in service---Institutional autonomy---Scope---Any institution opting for regularization of its employees must be either mandated by law or must carry out regularization through a well-thought out policy of the institution concerned laying down the criteria and the process for regularization; performance evaluation of the contractual employee must be assessed to determine if the employee meets the standards required for a regular position; there must be availability of positions that match the skills and experience of the contractual employee; the budgetary considerations and financial implication of a regular employee be weighed and considered---There must be a fair assessment of the employee's qualifications, performance and merit, so as to ensure only competent and committed employees be granted permanent employment status---Regularization is, therefore, not a ritualistic and mechanical exercise---It requires fresh assessment of the candidature of the contractual employee by the competent authority before he is made a regular employee as any such act carries long term financial implications on the institution concerned---Process of regularization is grounded in principles of fairness, openness, transparency, non-discrimination and public interest---Regularization therefore has a close nexus with institutional policy and autonomy. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 323 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case VICE-CHANCELLOR AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PESHAWAR VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ Contractual employees---Regularization in service---Policy matter---Non-interference by Courts---Institutional autonomy---Process of regularization is a policy matter and the prerogative of the Executive which cannot be ordinarily interfered with by the Courts especially in the absence of any such policy---It does not befit the courts to design or formulate policy for any institution, they can, however, judicially review a policy if it is in violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution---Wisdom behind non-interference of courts in policy matters is based on the concept of institutional autonomy. Citation Name: 2024 PLC(CS) 323 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case VICE-CHANCELLOR AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PESHAWAR VS MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ Contractual employees---Regularization in service---Principles---There is no vested right to seek regularization for employees hired on contractual basis unless there is any legal or statutory basis for the same---Process of regularization requires backing of any law, rules or policy---It should adhere to the relevant statutory provisions and government policies---In the absence of any of the same, a contractual employee cannot claim regularization---Any regularization without the backing of law offends the principles of fairness, transparency and meritocracy and that too at the expense of public exchequer.

VICE-CHANCELLOR AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY, PESHAWAR vs MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ art — 2024 PLC(CS) 323 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC