In the realm of public service and civil administration, appointments by absorption have sparked significant debate and scrutiny. At first glance, the concept seems straightforward—allowing a civil servant to transition into a new department without going through the standard recruitment process. However, the practice often treads on the fine line between administrative convenience and legal propriety. In Pakistan, the Supreme Court has taken a clear stance on this issue, setting down precedents that emphasize adherence to service rules, meritocracy, and transparency in government appointments. This approach ensures that appointments are not influenced by political intervention or favoritism, which could disrupt the integrity and efficiency of public service.
Through a series of landmark judgments—most notably in cases like Muhammad Sharif Tareen v. Government of Balochistan and Rafiq Ahmed v. Government of Balochistan—the Supreme Court has underscored the need for appointments by absorption to strictly follow service regulations. These rulings highlight the Court’s commitment to upholding recruitment processes that prioritize fairness and merit, thereby fostering a more transparent government system. This article delves into the nuanced legal questions surrounding appointment by absorption, exploring the judicial reasoning behind these decisions through a Q&A that encapsulates the Court’s perspective and provides a comprehensive overview of this contentious issue.
- Q: What is “appointment by absorption” in the context of civil service?
- A: Appointment by absorption occurs when a civil servant, originally recruited for a specific role, is permanently placed in a different department, bypassing the regular recruitment or promotion processes for that post. (2018 SCMR 54)
- Q: What was the Supreme Court’s stance on appointment by absorption in the case of Muhammad Sharif Tareen v. Government of Balochistan?
- A: The Court held that if service rules require initial recruitment for a position, appointment by absorption is invalid. Tareen was repatriated as his absorption bypassed recruitment rules. (2018 SCMR 54)
- Q: Can a civil servant be absorbed into a new department if the department’s rules require initial recruitment?
- A: No, the Supreme Court has ruled that such appointments are unlawful, as in Muhammad Sharif Tareen v. Government of Balochistan, where initial recruitment was mandated. (2018 SCMR 54)
- Q: Why was the absorption of officers in the Gwadar Development Authority considered illegal?
- A: The Gwadar Development Authority’s regulations allowed transfers but not absorption from government departments. Thus, the Supreme Court found such absorption against the law and ordered repatriation. (2018 SCMR 48)
- Q: In cases where appointment by absorption is not provided by service rules, what is the typical remedy?
- A: The Court generally orders repatriation of the absorbed employee to their original department, as demonstrated in Rafiq Ahmed v. Government of Balochistan. (2018 SCMR 48)
- Q: How does the Supreme Court view appointments by absorption influenced by political intervention?
- A: The Court condemns such practices, stating they often ignore merit and violate legal standards, as in Sudhir Ahmed v. Speaker, Balochistan Provincial Assembly. (2017 SCMR 2051)
- Q: Are deputationists allowed to be absorbed permanently into other government departments?
- A: No, deputationists are generally required to return to their original departments after their tenure ends, as seen in Rafiq Ahmed v. Government of Balochistan. (2018 SCMR 48)
- Q: What is the Court’s position on absorbing non-cadre civil servants into cadre posts?
- A: The Court has ruled against such absorptions, stating that non-cadre positions cannot be converted to cadre positions through absorption. (2017 SCMR 2051)
- Q: What did the Supreme Court say about the seniority of absorbed officers?
- A: The Court emphasized that absorption must not affect the seniority of officers already serving in a department, as illustrated in Muhammad Sharif Tareen v. Government of Balochistan. (2018 SCMR 54)
- Q: How does the Supreme Court’s decision in Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh relate to appointment by absorption?
- A: The Court used this decision to reinforce that service rules prohibiting absorption must be strictly followed, invalidating absorption in contravention of such rules. (2015 SCMR 456 cited in 2018 SCMR 54)
- Q: Can a civil servant claim that their absorption is valid if similar cases have been previously struck down?
- A: No, precedents from similar cases establish that if absorption contravenes service rules, it is invalid, as reaffirmed in Muhammad Sharif Tareen v. Government of Balochistan. (2018 SCMR 54)
- Q: What is the outcome when a department’s regulations do not explicitly allow absorption?
- A: Absorption is considered illegal and subject to reversal, as the Court concluded in Rafiq Ahmed v. Government of Balochistan. (2018 SCMR 48)
- Q: Is there any flexibility in interpreting service regulations to allow absorption where it is not expressly provided?
- A: No, the Court holds a strict interpretation, emphasizing adherence to explicit provisions of service rules, as demonstrated in Gwadar Development Authority Employees (Service) Regulations, 2006. (2018 SCMR 48)
- Q: Does the absence of a repatriation provision in service rules allow absorbed employees to remain in their new roles?
- A: No, the Court mandates repatriation to the original department if the absorption lacks a legal basis, as shown in the case of Muhammad Sharif Tareen. (2018 SCMR 54)
- Q: What general principle does the Supreme Court uphold regarding appointments that bypass merit?
- A: The Court strongly opposes appointments that ignore merit or legal procedures, stressing that such actions undermine governance, as discussed in Sudhir Ahmed v. Speaker, Balochistan Provincial Assembly. (2017 SCMR 2051)
Call for Legal Consultation +92-3048734889 (WhatsApp)
Email : [email protected]
https://joshandmakinternational.com