2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.

According to the contents of this writ petition filed in this Court on 3-7-1997, all the petitioners are matriculate and also have done their PTC Course. They were interviewed by a recruitment committee in February, 1997 and were appointed as PTC Teacher in BS-7 vide orders issued by the competent appointing authority in the same month. The grievance being made out was that order dated 6-6-1997 has been served upon them without intimating that their appointments have been cancelled. The writ petitions came up before this Court on 4-7-1997 when report and parawise comments were called for. C.M. No.2111 of 1997 was taken up on 1-8-1997 and the operation of the said order was suspended. The requisite report was filed on 25-11-1997; it was stated that the appointments have been made without approval of the competent authority i.e. Chairman Board of Intermediate Secondary Education D.G. Khan. It was further admitted that the petitioners were interviewed by the departmental recruitment committee. It was further admitted that the petitioners are continuously performing their duties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that admittedly the appointment orders were issued by the competent appointing authority. These had taken effect and the petitioners were posted in various schools where they were performing their duties when the appointment orders were recalled. The precise contention is that these could not have been so recalled without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

3. Learned A.A.-G. on the other hand contends that the said appointment orders are fraudulent.

4. I have given some thought to the respective contentions noted above. I called upon the officers present to state as to whether the petitioners possessed the requisite qualification at the time of appointment, the answer is in the positive. I further made a query as to whether there has been any complaint as to the conduct and efficiency of the petitioner over a period of last 9 years, the answer is in the negative. It has already been noted by me above that the appointment orders were issued by an authorized person, who was the competent authority. The department itself instituted an inquiry and it was reported that the ladies at Serial Nos.1 to 61 in the merit list have 82 to 64 academic marks whereas the ladies at Serial Nos.62 to 203 have 60 marks. Out of the later category 31 persons were selected on the basis of better marks in the interview. Nothing was alleged against the petitioner ladies but it had been stated that the appointing authority had exceeded its jurisdiction by appointing them as primary teachers.

5. In the above circumstance when no fraud or misdeed is attributable to the petitioners and further when they were duly qualified for the said posts and now almost for a decade their performance as such has been found to be satisfactory and more particularly when the orders of appointment which had duly taken effect have been recalled without due process of law. I find the impugned order to be without lawful authority and accordingly declared as such, the same is set aside. Needless to state that the petitioners would always be subject to the departmental rules in the matter of performance and discipline and can be proceeded in case any violation of the said rules if found of course in accordance with the law. No orders as to costs. H.B.T./S-30/L Petition allowed.