1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Malik Muhammad Rashid for Respondents. Date of hearing: 29th July, 1990. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was appointed as Class-IV employee (Chowkidar) in the Education Department in BPS-1 by Headmistress, Govt. Girls Primary School, Kot Sarang, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot vide appointment order dated 2-12-1989. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.No.4093/90 is that although he is performing his duty diligently, honestly and efficiently yet the respondents have stopped payment of his salary from June, 1990 upward while in the W.P.No.4565/90 the grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.l has cancelled his appointment vide impugned order dated 11-6-1990 on the pretext that the Headmistress was not competent to make the appointment.

2. The petitions were admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondent No.l is present alongwith Mr. Muhammad Rashid Malik, Advocate. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petitions has argued that at the relevant time Headmistress was competent to make the appointment of Class-IV employees and there is nothing wrong with the appointment of the petitioner. It is added that subsequently the Department got the appointment of petitioner regularised from the Government. In this behalf, reference is made to letter dated 16-2-1990 from Section Officer (Welfare-III), Government of the Punjab, Services General Administration and Information Department to Section Officer (NG.I1), Government of the Punjab, Education Department. It is added that the respondents have illegally stopped the salary of his client.

3. On the other hand it is argued that the appointment was not valid because the application for appointment was not signed by the petitioner, the appointment was made during the ban on fresh recruitments, that the appointment was made in irregular manner and Headmistress was not competent to make the appointment.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The respondent No.l, who is present in Court, when asked whether on 2-12-1989 Headmistress was competent to make the appointment of the petitioner or not? She admitted that on the said date the Headmistress was competent, therefore, there is no merit in the last argument advanced on behalf of the respondents that the Headmistress was not competent to make the appointment.

5. Now coming to the first argument that the application of the petitioner for appointment was not signed by him is without any merit because the appointment was duly accepted by the petitioner and he not only reported for duty but has been working as Chowkidar. The other argument is that appointment was made when there was a ban on fresh recruitments. The argument is again without any merit because the Government regularised the appointment of the petitioner vide memo. dated 16-2-1990 when moved by the Education Department in this behalf as is clear from the memo. dated 16-2-1990. The learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled by respondent No.1 on none of these two grounds, therefore, these arguments are afterthought.

6. The upshot of this discussion is that both the writ petitions are allowed with costs. The result is that the impugned order dated 11-6-1990 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner is set aside as illegal and the respondents are directed to pay the salary to the petitioner up-to-date. M.Y.H./M-2367/L Petitions allowed.