Quota seat availability: Supreme Court seeks report from establishment division

A three-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC) here on Wednesday sought report from the Establishment Division about the availability of any vacant quota seat for Punjab province. The three-member bench comprising Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Ijaz-ul-Hassan and Justice Mohammad Moosa K Leghari heard the case.
Munir Paracha, counsel for the respondent Farrukh Rashid, appeared before the Apex Court and said that his client, a former serviceman in Pakistan Air Force, should be re-appointed by the Establishment Division on quota allocated for the armed forces and Punjab province. He said that Lahore High Court (LHC) and Federal Services Tribunal decisions were in his favour.
Farrukh Rashid prayed to bench that he had served as ASP Islamabad and after termination of his services he was out of service for about four years. He said he qualified Federal Public Service Commission Exams for the two seats of Punjab province. Now, a seat was lying vacant, so it was his right to be re-appointed.
Deputy Attorney General Nahida Mehboob Elahi apprised the Apex court that his appointment was not made on merit but on the directions of LHC, Rawalpindi Bench and FST. She said that the both Courts without issuing notices to the Establishment Division, had issued directives for his appointment.
The appointments on 10 percent seats reserved for armed forces were already done on merit at that time, she added. She said these include one each for Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and AJK. Deputy Attorney General said when his case was taken to the Supreme Court, it rejected his plea and so his services were terminated on the ground that the learned courts did not seek comments from Establishment Division.
His review petition was also rejected, she added. Nahida said the respondent also made the statements of Law Division and Attorney General's comments as basis for his case. She said Attorney General made the comments about his re-appointment when he was not aware about the services of another Army man Lieutenant Hilal.
The respondent had contended that discrimination should not be done after reviewing both the cases. The representative from Establishment Division said that Lieutenant Hilal went back to PAF and no longer serving on quota seats.
However, she said, if there was any seat lying vacant with Establishment Division, she would have no objection over his re-adjustment. The bench asked Establishment Division to submit detailed report on November 30 and adjourned the case.