Sindh ombudsman employees challenge hiring rules

Petitioners says no specific procedure or criteria available to fill the posts like advisors, consultants

HYDERABAD:

A group of employees of the provincial ombudsman has challenged the rules and precedents of making appointments on the vacancies of officers and lower staff in the department. The Sindh High Court Karachi will hear the petitioners as well as the respondents, including the provincial government, ombudsman and his subordinate officers, on March 18.

Some 12 petitioners, who all work for the provincial ombudsman in BS-16 and BS-14, have contended in the petition that the ombudsman has been given 'unfettered' and 'unbridled' power to make direct appointments. According to them, there is no specific procedure or criteria available to fill the posts like advisors, consultants, fellows and associated ministerial staff.

"Therefore, every Ombudsman takes advantage of such silence over the induction." The law governing the entire setup of the ombudsman is the Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh Act, 1991.

They stated that most of the persons appointed under section 20 of the 1991 Act are retired civil servants who draw pensions from the government exchequer while also receiving huge benefits like official vehicles along with the driver and 150 to 250 litres of petrol besides pay from the Ombudsman. They claimed that contrarily Federal Ombudsman, Tax Ombudsman, Insurance Ombudsman and Ombudsman for Protection against harassment of women at the workplace hire employees through advertising the posts though the concerned laws are identical.

According to the petitioners, there are only three posts of advisors but the provincial ombudsman has appointed seven advisors. Likewise, they alleged, the ombudsman has also been filling the 21 posts of BPS-19 Director by hiring retired government servants on contract. "There is no criteria, qualification, eligibility, requirements, age limit, experience and term of contract."

The petitioners contended that such appointments violate articles 2-A, 9, 10-A, 18, 19, 19-A and 25, read with article 4, of the constitution. They referred to five different judgments of the Supreme Court to substantiate their contentions, pointing out that such appointments have been nullified by the Supreme Court in the past.

They prayed the court to declare section 20 of the Ombudsman Act, 1991, concerning appointments and reappointments of the staff as illegal and a violation of the dicta laid down by the apex court. They also pleaded with the SHC to order the ombudsman to fill the 21 vacancies of BPS-19 Directors in terms of Provincial Ombudsman Service Rules, 1997, and those of advisors, consultants, fellows and other ministerial staff through advertisement.