| Case ID |
04e2cbab-81c2-42dd-b18c-6b6f2f698a42 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
I.C.A. No. 108 of 2017 |
| Decision Date |
Nov 14, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit. The court found that the appellants were appointed on a temporary basis and did not provide evidence that their employment should be converted to permanent status without a competitive process. The court emphasized the need for strict adherence to constitutional mandates regarding equal opportunity in public employment and the importance of competitive processes for securing permanent positions. The appellants had not established that they were entitled to regularization based on previous cases, as the conditions and circumstances were distinguishable. The decision highlighted the importance of maintaining a transparent and fair hiring process in public service to ensure that qualified individuals are not unfairly disadvantaged. |
| Summary |
In the case of I.C.A. No. 108 of 2017, the Islamabad High Court addressed the issue of regularization of contractual employment within the context of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The appellants, who were Data Entry Operators appointed on a temporary basis, sought to have their services regularized after they had completed more than a year in their positions. The court ruled that the appellants had not participated in a competitive hiring process and thus could not claim permanent status based on their temporary contracts. The ruling emphasized the distinction between temporary and permanent employment, asserting that converting temporary positions to permanent ones without competition undermines the principles of meritocracy and equal opportunity in public service. The decision serves as a critical reminder of the need for transparency and fairness in public employment practices, ensuring that all candidates have equal access to job opportunities. Keywords such as 'contractual employment', 'regularization of services', 'Islamabad High Court', and 'Constitution of Pakistan' are crucial for understanding the implications of this case. |
| Court |
Islamabad High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Not available
|
| Judges |
ATHAR MINALLAH,
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB,
MUHAMMAD QASIM
|
| Lawyers |
Mohsin Raza Gondal
|
| Petitioners |
Sayyed Umar Sohail Shah
|
| Respondents |
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF OVERSEAS PAKISTANIS AND HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND ANOTHER
|
| Citations |
2019 SLD 3151,
2019 PLC 1491
|
| Other Citations |
Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Adnan Ullah 2017 PLC (C.S.) 307,
Rizwan Javed v. Secretary, Agriculture and Livestock 2017 PLC (C.S.) 712
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
|
| Sections |
3,
9
|