ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court held on Tuesday that a vested right of an individual, when accrued, became an unqualified secured right and did not rest on any particular event or set of circumstances.

“The doctrine of vested right upholds and preserves that once a right is coined in one locale, its existence should be recognised everywhere and claims based on vested rights are enforceable under the law for its protection,” observed Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar in a judgement.

Justice Mazhar was a member of a two-judge bench, headed by Sardar Tariq Masood, that took up an appeal by Quetta’s inspector general (IG) of police.

The IG challenged an April 2021 verdict passed by the Balochistan service tribunal in Quetta, which had set aside the cancellation order of the appointments and reinstated several respondents, including one Fida Muhammad.

Reinstatement of Balochistan police employees upheld

When the respondents were appointed after fulfilling codal formalities, vested rights were created in their favour, which could not have been withdrawn or cancelled in a perfunctory manner on mere pre-supposition or conjecture, the judgement said, adding that this development was “clearly hit by the doctrine of locus poenitentiae [an opportunity to withdraw a contract] that is well acknowledged and embedded in our judicial system”.

“It is a right independent of any contingency or eventuality which may arise from a contract, statute or by operation of law,” the verdict said.

Fida Muhammad and other respondents applied for different vacant posts through an advertisement published in different newspapers in December 2018, inviting applications in the Balochistan police Sibi range.

After completion of all requisite formalities, including the scrutiny of documents, the resp­ondents were selected and appointment letters were issued to them in May 2019, only to be withdrawn the next month through a consolidated order.

The respondents filed a departmental appeal which remains undecided, and therefore they preferred the service appeal before the tribunal, which allowed their appeal.

Justice Mazhar observed that if the order was illegal, perpetual rights could not be gained based on such an illegal order. But in this case, “nothing was articulated to allege that the respondents by hook and crook managed their appointments or committed any misrepresentation or fraud or their appointments were made on political consideration or motivation or they were not eligible or not local residents of the district advertised for inviting applications for the job”, he noted.

The apex court dismissed the appeal.

Published in Dawn, June 1st, 2022