2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
BUSHRA BEGUM Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Education and 4 others
| Citation | 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Umar Ata Bandial, J |
| Parties | BUSHRA BEGUM Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Education and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Umar Ata Bandial, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (BUSHRA BEGUM Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Education and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Pervaiz Inayat Malik for Petitioner.
- Misbah-ul-Islam, A.-A.G. and Arshad Pervez Qamar AEO Nurkot, with record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st October, 2005.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition Civil service
Appellate Authority in its order had acknowledged that appointment letter of petitioner was never cancelled by concerned Authorities
Petitioner had submitted that she admittedly never was terminated from the post of S.V.T. and that one thousand other teachers holding same post of S.V.T., whose appointment had been cancelled en bloc, were restored to their posts by order of Chief Minister
Authority, in written comments had stated that no direction for reinstatement of petitioner having been given by Chief Minister, no action had been taken to assign duties to petitioner
.Stand taken by Authority, suffered from two flaws; firstly that without having been terminated from service, petitioner did not have to be reinstated and no direction by Chief Minister in her case was necessary; secondly, if one thousand similarly placed teachers had been restored to office, there was no reason for the authority to discriminate against petitioner in assigning her work
Authority was directed to assign duties to petitioner as a S.V.T., since she admittedly had never been terminated from service.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the order dated 29-1-2001 by Respondent No.3 issued on the appeal filed, by the petitioner wherein it is acknowledged that the appointment letter of the petitioner was never cancelled by the concerned authorities on account of an error. Consequently, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was admittedly never terminated from the post of an SVT. One thousand other teachers holding the same post whose appointments had been cancelled en bloc were restored to their posts by order of the Chief Minister Punjab during his. visit of District Sialkot. The written comments by the Respondent No.1 state that no direction for reinstatement of the petitioner has been given by the Chief Minister and therefore no action has been taken to assign duties to her.
2. The stand taken by the Respondent No.1 suffers from the flaws. Firstly, without having been terminated from service, the petitioner did not have to be reinstated and therefore no direction by the Chief Minister in her case was necessary. Secondly, if one thousand similarly placed teachers have been restored to office, there is no reason for the Respondent No.1 to discriminate against the petitioner for assigning her work in the district.
3. The Respondent No.3 is accordingly directed to assign duties to the petitioner as a SVT since admittedly she has never been terminated from service. If on the other hand, there are any proceedings to be taken against the petitioner, the District Education Officer, Narowal may commence the same subject to notice and hearing to the petitioner and strictly in accordance with law. The needful shall be done within a period of two months.
4. With the foregoing observation the petition is disposed of. H.B.T/B-5/L Order accordingly