Appointment Under Rule 17-A: Significant High Court Judgment

A government employee was dismissed from service solely on the ground that his appointment under Rule 17-A was made six months after the said law had ceased to operate. The department treated this delay as sufficient to declare the appointment illegal and terminated his services.

The said order of dismissal was challenged before the Honorable High Court. It was contended that the employee’s father had retired on medical grounds prior to the repeal/expiry of the law, thereby giving rise to a vested right in favor of the employee for appointment under Rule 17-A. It was further argued that mere administrative delay or the timing of the appointment cannot extinguish an accrued legal right.

After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, including the Government of Punjab, the Honorable High Court agreed with the petitioner’s stance. The Court held that the right of the employee had crystallized before the law ceased to operate, and therefore, the subsequent appointment could not be declared illegal on that basis.

Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the impugned order of withdrawal of appointment was set aside, and the employee’s appointment was declared lawful. The Court further directed that the employee be reinstated into service forthwith.

This judgment reinforces the established legal principle that once a right has accrued, it cannot be defeated by subsequent legal or administrative changes.

Acknowledgment:
The successful outcome of this case also reflects the dedicated legal efforts of Allah Nawaz Khosa, Advocate, whose effective advocacy and well-reasoned arguments played a vital role in securing justice for the aggrieved employee.