-311PRFAVIE �
•LIRT �
1..2.A.KI4G TV.A.f-,7 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, CJ 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
Mr. Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi 
Appeal .Ne,92'6 of 2020  
[Against the judgment dated 29.07.2020, passed by the Peshawar High Court, 
Peshawar in Writ Petition No.2527-P of 2020] 
The Chairman Board of Governors, Medical 
Teaching institute (MTI) Lady Reading Hospital, 
(LRH), Peshawar and others. 
Versus 
Syed. Roidar Shah, Clinical Technician (Pharmacy), 
Medical 'leaching Institute (11/ITI), Lady Reading 
Hospital (LRH), Peshawar and others. 
...Appellant (s) 
...Respondent(s) 
For the Appellant (s) �
Mr. Waseem-ud-Din Khattak, ASC 
Mr. M.S.Khattak, AOR 
For Respondents No.1-7 �
IViian Shafaqat Jan, ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
For Respondent No.9 � Imran �
Hamid, �
Additional 
Secretary, Health Department, KP 
Hafeez ur Rehman Shah, S.O. 
Health Department, KP 
Shehbaz Khan, Superintendent, 
Health Department, KP 
Date of Hearing �
03.02.2021 
ORDER 
Guire".:e Ahmed, CJ,— The appellants have challenged 
the judgment dated 29.07,2020, passed by the learned Division 
Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar (the High. Court} by 
which the order of termination of deputation of the private 
respondents (the respondents) was set aside and the appellants 
were directed to continue the employment of the respondents on 
,C.A po.9.75 01.7920 �
2 
deputation and their arrival reports be accepted. Leave to appeal 
was granted vide order dated 23.10.2020, relevant portion thereof 
is as follows: - 
"The learned counsel for the petitioners contends 
that the respondents were not the employees of 
the petitioners rather they were on secondment to 
the petitioners. Adds that the petitioners having 
terminated their secondment and relieved them to 
report for duties to their parent department, such 
order could not have been interfered with by the 
learned High Court in exercise of its writ 
jurisdiction, in that, the petitioners are not 
interested to retain them as their employees and 
they cannot be forced upon the petitioners. 
2. 
At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants has 
contended that all the respondents working in the Medical 
Teachings Institutions (MTI) were employed on deputation as per 
the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms 
Act, 2015 (the Act of 2015), as amended from time to time, and 
the Board of Governors of the MTI was competent to terminate the 
deputation and to relieve the deputationists for reporting to their 
parent department. He has further contended that the very fact 
that the respondents were deputationists is not mentioned in the 
impugned judgment and thus, the High Court made a serious 
mistake in law by allowing the writ petition filed by the 
respondents, allowing them to continue on deputation in MTI. 
3. 
Learned counsel for the respondents admitted the fact 
that the respondents were working on deputation in MTI and also 
read Regulation 16(3A) of the Act of 2015 to contend that it was 
cA.bio,925 11 2.1129_ 
only the Board, which was competent to terminate the deputation 
of the respondents; whereas, in the order of relieving though it is 
mentioned that the Board of Governors of MTI has passed the 
order terminating the deputation and relieving the respondents 
with direction to report to their parent department, but contends 
that the very order of the Board of Governors is not attached. We 
have asked the learned counsel for the respondents to show us as 
to where in the writ petition the respondents have asserted this 
very point, as is raised by the learned counsel for the respondents 
before us, he admitted that such point has not been raised by the 
respondents in the writ petition. 
4. � To appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for 
the parties, it is imperative to consider the provisions of 
Subsections (3A) and (3B) of Section 16 of the Act of 2015; which 
are as follows: 
"16(3A) Civil servants, who do not opt for 
absorption in the Medical Teaching Institution, 
so notified, shall be dealt with in such a manner 
as provided in section 11A of the Khyber 
Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Act 1973; for their 
future posting, which includes deputation to the 
Medical Teaching Institution subject to a request 
being made by the Board: 
Provided that a civil servant working in a 
Medical Teaching Institution, shall at all times, 
be deemed to be on deputation. All deductions 
made from the pay of such civil servants shall be 
deposited by the borrowing authority. 
(3B) A civil servant at the request of the Board 
may be sent on deputation to a Medical 
<7.4.No.92.5of 2020 
Teaching Institution by the Government. For 
civil servants on deputation to the Medical 
Teaching Intuition, pension contribution shall be 
made by the Medical Teaching Institution. The 
deputation of a civil servant to a Medical 
Teaching Institution may be terminated by the 
Board at any time without assigning any reason 
thereof and such civil servants services shall 
revert to the Government immediately upon 
such termination being notified by the Board." 
The reading of the above provisions show that all civil 
servants employed in MTI are deemed to be on deputation and the 
Board of Governors is competent to terminate the deputation 
period and relieve the employees from MT' and it is not required to 
give any reason for doing so. 
The submission of the learned counsel for the 
respondents that Board of Governors' order has not been filed by 
the appellants is of not much significance for the reasons; firstly, 
the respondents have not taken up this issue before the High 
Court in the very writ petition and secondly, the very letter of 
terminating the deputation period and relieving the respondents 
specifically mentioned that it is issued on the directions of the 
Board of Governors. 
6. � The very mentioning that the letter has been issued on 
the direction of the Board of Governors, apparently, is sufficient for 
meeting the requirements of the compliance of law noted above, 
unless the respondents could have shown otherwise, which they 
have not done so. 
C.A.JVO. 92.i o12020 
- 5 - 
7. � It is established law that a deputationist has no right 
to continue in an employment as a deputationist and the employer, 
where the deputationist is employed, is competent to terminate the 
deputation and relieve the deputationist from its employment for 
reporting to his parent department. Reference in this regard is 
made to the case of Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman .Afridi  vs. C. D.A. ,  
Islamabad through Chairman and others  (2010 SCMR 378), 
wherein it was held as under: - 
We may mention here that the deputationist • 
by no stretch of imagination and in absence of any 
specific provision of law can ask to serve the total 
period of deputation and he can be repatriated 
being a deputationist by the Competent Authority in 
the interest of exigency of service as and when so 
desired and such order of the competent authority 
cannot be questioned. ..." 
Further reference is made to the cases of S. Masood Abbas 
Rizvi vs. Federation of Pakistan through. Secretary Establishment 
and others  (2014 SCMR 799) and Senate Secretariat through 
Ch.airman  and another vs. Miss Faiga Abdul Hayee  (2014 SCMR 
522). 
L. � We may note that the mistake has occurred in passing 
the impugned judgment by the High Court, in that, the High Court 
has altogether omitted to take into consideration the very fact that 
the respondents were deputationists and their deputation in terms 
of the law, as noted above, was always liable to be terminated by 
the Board of Governors without assigning any reason. No right of 
the respondents at all is violated and thus, the very writ petition 
c'.4.No.925 p_f_20?0 �
- 6 - 
filed by the respondents before the High Court was on its face not 
maintainable. 
9. � In view of the above, the impugned judgment is not 
sustainable in law. The same is, therefore, set aside and the appeal 
is allowed. 
ck 
(7' 
Bench-I. 
IslaniEhBa 
03_02.2021 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
Rabbani./