1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), RAHIMYAR KHAN and 2 others
| Citation | 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Munir Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), RAHIMYAR KHAN and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Munir Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), RAHIMYAR KHAN and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shaheen Masood Rim, A.A.‑G. for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Sajid Feroz for Appellant. Shaheen Masood Rim, A.A.‑G. for Respondents. Date of hearing: 8th July, 1989. As identical questions of law and facts are involved in the four Writ Petitions Nos. 803 of 1989 filed by Muhammad Afzal, 8114 of 1989 by Muhammad Arshad, 835 of 1989 by Mukhtar Ali and 768 of 1989 by Ashiq Hussain petitioners, so I propose to dispose of them through single judgment.
2. The facts leading to these petitions briefly are that the aforesaid petitioners are class‑IV employees in Education Department. District Education Officer, respondent No.1 terminated/cancelled the services/appointments of Muhammad Afzal on 28‑1‑1989, Muhammad Arshad on 28‑2‑1989, Mukhtar Ali on 1‑3‑1989 and of Ashiq Hussain on 28‑5‑1989, hence these petitions.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the services of the petitioners have illegally been terminated because the District Education Officer, respondent No. 1 has not applied his/her independent mind and has simply obeyed the orders of the Education Minister, Government of the Punjab, Learned A.A.‑t a. has half heartedly supported the impugned orders.
4. I have considered the matter carefully. I feel persuaded to agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners. I find that the District Education Officer, respondent No. 1 has not passed an independent order. He/ 'she has not applied his/her own mind to the question of termination of the services of the petitioners or of the cancellation of their appointments and has virtually obeyed the direction given by Minister for Education, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, who was not an Authority for the termination of the services/cancellation of the appointments of the petitioners. Furthermore, the impugned order seems to be arbitrary one; because all appointments made of Class‑IV servants or other employees in BS‑1 A on or after 1‑1‑1989 in the educational institutions (primary/middle/high schools) have simultaneously and arbitrarily been terminated/cancelled without examining the case of the individual employee. Pursuant to the above discussion, the impugned orders are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties will bear their own costs. A.A./M‑1459/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions accepted.