P L D 2000 Supreme Court 50 (PLP)

(On appeal from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 27‑1‑1999 passed in Appeal No.459 of 1998). Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Civil servant, before his appointment, had qualified the written test and interview conducted by the Recruitment Committee constituted by the Government and was given the charge of his assignment but after about seven weeks of his appointment he was verbally told that his appointment was not made in accordance with Rules. as such he could not be allowed to work in pursuance of the direction of Competent Authority‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Civil servant was neither associated with any inquiry nor was a party to the Constitutional petition in the High Court wherein direction for scrutiny of appointments made by a particular official of the department was made nor there was any allegation of his credentials being forged or bogus‑‑‑Nothing was available on record which could justify the restraint order passed against the civil servant‑‑‑Such verbal order being no order in the eye of law, decision of Service Tribunal to the effect that civil servant was to be deemed to be in service right from the date of his appointment and he was entitled to all back benefits, was just, fair and proper‑‑‑No question of law of public importance warranting interference by Supreme Court having been raised in support of the petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of Service Tribunal, petition was dismissed in circumstances. PLD 1979 Lah. 699 and PLD 1998 Kar. 180 ref. ORDER RAJA AFRASIAB KHAN, J.‑‑‑On 4‑2‑1997, the respondent, Hafiz Muhammad Alam was appointed by the competent Authority as Arabic Teacher in response to an advertisement having been issued by the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Education Department. The respondent before his appointment, admittedly, qualified the requisite written test and interveiw conducted by the Recruitment Committee duly constituted by Government. He was given the charge of his assignment on 6‑2‑1997. This being so, he continued to perform his official duties. It was on 26‑3‑1997 when an information was conveyed to him that his appointment was not made in accordance with the rules and as such he could not be allowed to work in pursuance of the direction of. the competent Authority vide letter dated 17‑2‑1997. The respondent filed departmental appeal which was rejected on 13‑10‑1997. ,His appeal was, however, accepted by the Punjab Service Tribunal vide impugned decision dated 27‑1‑1999. In the result, he was reinstated in service with back benefits. This is a petition for leave to appeal against the impugned order.

2. Learned counsel has argued that the appointment of the respondent was bad in law, inasmuch as, it was not made by the competent Authority.

3. There is no substance in the argument, inasmuch as, the respondent succeeded in the written test and the interview for the requisite job. He was, accordingly, appointed as Arabic Teacher. He had been performing his official duties. The Tribunal in its well‑reasoned decision observed:‑‑ "From the above discussion it appears that neither the appellant was associated with any such inquiry, nor he was a party to the writ petition in the High Court wherein a direction for scrutiny of the appointments made by Mr. Goraya was made nor there was any allegation of his credentials being forged or bogus. As such, there is nothing on record justifying the restraint order passed against the appellant. Even otherwise, the verbal order is no order in the eyes of law. Reference in this connection may be made to PLD 1970 Lahore 699 and PLD 1998 Kar.

180. In this view of the matter, the appeal is hereby accepted. The appellant shall be deemed to be‑in service right from the date of his appointment and he shall be entitled to all back benefits." The impugned decision of the Tribunal is just, fair and proper. No question of law of public importance warranting interference by this Court has been raised or argued by the learned counsel in support of this petition for leave to appeal. There is, therefore, no substance in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. M.B.A./D‑24/S Petition dismissed.