2001 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

The appellant was recruited as Mali on 9‑10‑1984. He served the department to the best of his abilities for over (sic). He passed Matriculation Examination in 2nd Division. He also obtained FM certificate and applied for promotion against departmental quota of 1 % . He was appointed as PTC Teacher accordingly and was posted at Qaziwala Markaz on 19‑1‑1996. He worked quite satisfactorily but on 17‑10‑1998 he was issued a show‑cause notice indicating that his appointment was contrary to rules. He replied the notice but was reverted to his original position arbitrarily vide order dated 6‑11‑1998. He appealed against this order to the competent authority which was dismissed on 18‑8‑1999. In this background he had to file this appeal before the Tribunal seeking the quashment of the original as well as the appellate orders.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that reversion has taken place allegedly on the following grounds:‑‑ (i) That he was 3rd divisioner in Matric; (ii) that the dispatch number allotted to his appointment order was in conflict with the office record; and (iii) the appointment order was signed by incompetent officer.

3. According to the learned counsel, the appellant was a 2nd divisioner in Matric. It was none of his business to ensure that the office record correct dispatch number in the relevant register and as for incompetency of the officer who allegedly signed the appointment order, he (appellant) cannot be held responsible for this remiss.

4. The department controverted the pleas taken by the appellant reiterating their grounds taken in the show‑cause notice adding that there was no 1 % quota for the promotion of departmental candidates.

5. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.

6. As for the claim that he was 3rd divisioner in Matric, the appellant asserted in para. l of the appeal:‑‑ "That the appellant was appointed as Mali vide order, dated 9‑10‑1984, subsequently he joined the duty and started serving the department with devotion. During the .service the appellant passed his Matriculation Examination in 2nd Division 1989. The appellant also passed his P.T.C. Examination in first division in 1991.

7. The reply to this paragraph given by the respondents is as follow:‑‑ "Admitted as correct." This means that the respondents conceded that the appellant was 2nd Divisioner in Matric and also P.T.C. in 1st Division. This shows that there is no cavil with his claim that, he possessed the requisite qualification.

8. As for the wrong dispatch number assigned to this order in the relevant register, it shows that this was not the responsibility of the appellant. As regards, the signing of the appointment order by incompetent officer that too is a fault of the department and they can be allowed to draw any advantage of their wrong in view of the law laid down by honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1964 SC 572.

9. During the course of the arguments reference was made by the learned counsel to certain identical appointments namely those of Zafar Iqbal in Tehsil Taunsa, M.ukhtar Ahmad in D.G. Khan and Muhammad Ghafoor in Rajanpur against PTC quota. All these persons were in the first instance Class IV employees and. after acquiring the requisite qualification were promoted as PTC Teachers in their respective circles and were still serving in capacity of the PTC Teachers. The education officials present in the Court could not controvert the assertion. Learned counsel also drew attention towards the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No.2229 of 1999 (Allah Bakhsh v. Director Education, Multan). In this case appellant had worked as PTC Teacher for quite some time and a valuable right had accrued to him and after a long period the department cannot be allowed to turn back and say that the order passed by the authority was incompetent in view of the principle of locus poenitentiae laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in PLD 1969 SC

407. The appellant has relied upon the existence of 1% quota and circular letter issued by the education authorities as back as 19‑2‑1977 (Page 48). The department has claimed that this policy was no longer extent. Even if the position was of doubtful nature benefit of such a doubt should have accrued to the appellant. In this view of the matter, the appeal is accepted and the appellant shall be allowed to continue as PTC Teacher. During the period he had not been performing his services as a PTC Teacher, he will be entitled to pay of his former posts. H.B.T./34/Pb. (Sr.Trib.) Appeal accepted.