W.P. 1568-2011 - Islamabad High Court

ORDER SHEETIN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABADJUDICIAL DEPARTMENTWrit Petition No. 1568-2011,Mrs. Rubina KausarVersusFederation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Education Etc.S. No. oforderproceedingsDate oforder/proceedingsOrder with signature of Judge and that of partiesor counsel where necessary.01 19.05.2011. Syed Mumtaz Mazhar Naqvi, Advocate for thepetitioner.The petitioner prays that Circular issued byFederal Director of Education-respondent No. 3,bearing No. F 9/18 (W) FDE, dated 03-02-2010,whereby all the deputationists automatically standrepatriated to their parent departments oncompletion of their maximum deputation period i.e.five years, be set-aside as being in contravention ofthe wedlock policy and Articles 2-A, 3, 4, 9, 14, 25,35, 37, 38 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic ofPakistan, 1973. It has also been prayed that adirection be issued to the respondents to absorbthe petitioner permanently against her presentposting at Islamabad.2- It is submitted that the petitioner belongedto Education Department, Government of Punjaband was appointed on deputation basis as TrainedUnder Graduate Teacher (BS-14) and posted to F.G.

2Writ Petition No. 1568-2011,Mrs. Rubina KausarVersusFederation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Education Etc.rs....Girls Middle Model School, NHCChak ShahzadIslamabad, on the terms & conditions already issuedvide F.D.Es Officer Order dated 15-4-2006 andaccepted by her. Her initial posting was made on 12-5-2006 for three years which was extended foranother three years up till 11-5-2011. It is contendedthat acceding to the wedlock policy and due tostudies of her children at Islamabad, she is entitledfor permanent absorption against the presentposting, but the respondents are not consideringher request.3- Heard & record perused.4- It is an admitted position that thepetitioner has already enjoyed maximum period ofdeputation i.e. five years and thereafter her servicesshall automatically stand repatriated to her parentdepartment according to Circular dated 3-2-2010.5- For proper adjudication, it will beimperative to reproduce hereunder the extract ofImpugned Letter, dated 3 rd February, 2010, whichwas issued by the Federal Directorate of Education,Islamabad, with the subject:-”EXTENSION IN DEPUTATION”“I am directed to refer to thesubject to convey the policydecision of the competentauthority that because of no

3Writ Petition No. 1568-2011,Mrs. Rubina KausarVersusFederation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Education Etc.rs.provision in rules, all deputationistsshall automatically standrepatriated to their parentdepartments on completion oftheir maximum 05-years ofdeputation period underFederation Directorate ofEducation with no exception in anycase.”6- It is manifestly clear that in consequence ofa policy decision and due to having no provision inrules, it was directed that all deputationists shallautomatically stand repatriated to their parentdepartments on completion of their maximum termof five years of deputation period under FederalDirectorate of Education with no exception to anycase. The petitioner challenges a policy decisionwhich cannot be interfered with by this court underwrit jurisdiction, unless there exits strong reasonsor there is a discrimination which, the petitioner hasnot pointed out.7- It is also an admitted position thatpetitioner, after accepting all the terms &conditions of deputation, joined a School inIslamabad and now, after completion of stipulatedterm, for which she has consented at the time ofacceptance of terms & conditions of deputation,she has to go back to join her parent departmentand cannot take any exception....

4Writ Petition No. 1568-2011,Mrs. Rubina KausarVersusFederation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Education Etc.rs.8- The petitioner is a civil servant and the actdone is with regard to her terms & conditions sothere arises no question of infringement of any ofher fundamental rights.9- So far as wedlock policy is concerned, thesame is not applicable to the case of the petitioneras her husband, working as Foreman in AirWeapons Complex (NESCOM), which is a nonstatutory body, is not a civil servant. The Policy hadbeen made to curtail hardships faced by husbandsand wives in Government Service due to posting atdifferent stations of duty. It is quite clear that thepolicy explicitly applies to persons in GovernmentService and not any other service. I have nohesitation to hold that “deputation” is anadministrative arrangement between borrowingand lending Authorities for utilizing the services ofan employee in the public interest and exigency ofservices against a particular post against which thedeputationists cannot claim any right of permanentabsorption.10- The law on the subject is very much clear.The petitioner is a civil servant and remained ondeputation for a fixed term and was returned to herparent department in consequence of terms &conditions of her deputation. A deputationist...

5Writ Petition No. 1568-2011,Mrs. Rubina KausarVersusFederation of Pakistan through Secretary, M/o Education Etc.rs.cannot remain on deputation for an indefiniteperiod or stipulated period in accordance withhis/her own whims and wishes. While taking thisview, I am fortified by a Judgment rendered by theHon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi Versus CDA Islamabad throughChairman and others (2010 SCMR 378).11- The sum and substance of the abovediscussion is that a civil servant has no vested rightto complete the deputation period and matterrelating to the terms and conditions of service, theConstitutional Jurisdiction conferred upon thisCourt under Article 199 of the Constitution cannotbe invoked. The petition, thus, being merit less isdismissed in limine....M. Suhail(MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI)JUDGEApproved for Reporting.