The Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of “complete justice” is a broad and all-inclusive principle aimed at ensuring justice at all costs, so that fairness is not compromised or distorted based on mere technicalities.

The court stressed that justice must prevail over procedural rigidity, underscoring that it is the ultimate duty of the judiciary to correct injustice and ensure that wrong orders or actions are not allowed to persist.

An eight-page judgement authored by Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar while hearing a promotion case stressed that the laws were made for man and “man is not made for the laws”. It added that a wrong order and action cannot be perpetuated and it is the ultimate duty of the court to remedy injustice.

“The statutory rules and regulations, while providing the disciplinary actions and punishments, also protects the service rights of employees and failure to follow such laws and rules amounts to an inherent illegality and infringement of employees’ rights.”

According to the facts of the case, the respondent was appointed to the post of assistant chemist and metallurgist in BPS-17 on a two-year contract under a letter dated October 10, 2009.

He was later selected and recommended by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) for regular appointment against the same post through notification dated September 22, 2011.

The central issue in the case was that the respondent was given an additional charge of a higher post, CC&M (BS-18), through a letter dated March 2, 2012 and continued to perform those duties uninterrupted for almost eight years until his regular promotion, effective from August 17, 2020.

He later submitted a departmental appeal requesting an antedated promotion, which was dismissed on 26 May 2021.

Subsequently, he approached the Federal Service Tribunal (FST), which accepted the appeal and issued the impugned judgment along with certain directions.

‘Purely temporary’

A division bench of the SC noted that a stopgap arrangement refers to a purely temporary and make-shift appointment intended to maintain official functioning until a permanent or regular solution is available.

“It is primarily used as an interim measure to filling vacancy so that public services may not be disrupted. The stopgap arrangement includes the tenor of engagement as “ad-hoc”, “look-after charge”, “current charge” and/or “acting or additional charge”.”

The court further observed that such engagements are neither recognised as permanent nor regular appointments within a cadre, and holding such posts on a stopgap basis does not confer any right to regular promotion as a vested right in the higher grade.

It added that stop-gap arrangements must not continue for an unlimited period.

“Prolonged ad-hoc, look-after charge, current charge and or acting or additional charge is indeed a form of exploitation which is not only egregious but terribly frustrates the spirit of service laws, therefore un-limited, unbounded or infinite period does not support the philosophy of turn of phrase “stopgap arrangement”, which is not meant to keep the employees on the tenterhooks of uncertainty as a sword of Damocles.

“The State under the Constitution is duty bound and indebted to warrant social and economic justice in order to ensure transparency and fairness in civil servant service structure as a grander fragment of good governance doctrine,” the ruling observed.

The judgment further noted that under Article 3 of the Constitution, the state must ensure the elimination of all forms of exploitation and the gradual realisation of fundamental principles, including “from each according to his ability to each according to his work.

“In our view, it is aimed to nip in the bud against oppressive or autocratic actions while ensuring even handedness with non-discriminatory treatment at grassroots level sanguine to the laws and procedures exist to serve the ends of justice rather than trapping the individuals under the garb of rigid technicalities.”

The judgment noted that the mischief of departmental authority, administrative bodies, government departments or public officials, as often as not insinuates as a misuse of power, procedural irregularities, or mala fide conduct which includes the destabilisation of laws and rules through administrative or directorial overreach and adventurism.

It explained that the legal maxim “A communi observentia non est recedendum” denotes a legal principle that when the law specifies a particular way of doing something, it must be done in that manner.

It added that it was well-known code of behaviour that no one should be prejudiced by the act of court, which emphasises that for a complete sense of administration of justice, a patent and obvious error or oversight on the part of the court should be rectified and no man should suffer by the fault of the court.

“In our view this catchphrase must be applied to the administrative actions of administrative bodies equally while they perform their duties conferred to them under the law and rules and their decisions must be jus naturale and quantum meruit though in accordance with law and rules but without posing to be more knowledgeable or prudent than the laws and rules.”

The ruling noted that the doctrine of reasonable period or reasonable time, by and large, deciphers that instead of permitting an indefinite postponement for complying with or fulfilling a duty, the act must be completed within a fair timeframe.

“Here also stopgap arrangement vis-à-vis an act of non-posting a person on substantive post either by way of appointment or promotion cannot be left unregulated but mindful to the doctrine of reasonable period, the task of appointment/promotion should have completed within a reasonable period of time which may be extended to three months to six months period in order to meet the exigencies.”

“Following this timeline religiously will not become a cause of concern or grievance if any incumbent per-forming duties on higher post on ad-hoc/acting, look after or additional charge is not confirmed or actualised by the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Central Selection Board as the case may be then for sure, the stopgap arrangement will be over but in this case, the respondent was pendulous with undecided fate at least for eight years in the semblance of stopgap arrangement in violation of appointment, promotion and transfer rules.”

The court concluded that the objective of good governance cannot be achieved through arbitrary or un-reasonable exercise of discretionary powers, but only through fairness, transparency, and application of mind in line with constitutional provisions, including Articles 4 and 25.

In conclusion, the SC dismissed the government department’s petition and upheld the Federal Service Tribunal’s decision.