2013 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

KHALID MEHMOOD, J.

This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.2093, 1896 of 2007, 294 of 2008, 3402 of 2009, 3620 and 4378 of 2010, 2288 and 159 of 2011, as same question of law is involved all these petitions.

2. The brief facts of the case are that in response to advertisement for different posts of teachers in the Education Department, petitioners applied for the same. After conducting the test and interview for the said posts, the petitioners were ignored in the matter of appointment and the appointment orders dated 22-8-2007 etc, issued by the respondents department are illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect. According to petitioners, they were not invited for interview, rather vide impugned order dated 22-8-2007, appointment of respondents Nos.5 to 13 was made. Petitioners have prayed for directing the respondents concerned to appoint the petitioners being trained and qualified for the said posts.

3. On 23-2-2012, during course of hearing, this Court come to the conclusion that all the certificates produced by the 'petitioners with regard to their professional qualification should be examined by Secretary Education, the Province of Sindh as to whether the same are genuine and have been issued by the concerned Institution and also to verify that the certificates produced by the petitioners are equivalent to Drawing Master. The petitioners were also directed to submit their original certificates with the Additional Registrar of this Court within a week time for sending for the above-said purpose. Prior to that comments and rejoinder were filed by the parties concerned.

4. Counsel for petitioners argued that impugned order issued by respondent No.1/department is against law, without jurisdiction and of no legal effect; that the petitioners were trained drawing masters; that respondent concerned had totally ignored the petitioners while making the impugned order of appointment in spite of the fact that they were 'placed at high pedestal of merit and qualified for the appointment. On the other hand, it was .argued on behalf of respondents that all the appointments were made in accordance with law and policy of the Government governing the subject.

5. With the valuable assistance of the counsel for the parties, the record perused.

6. The main grievances of all the petitioners in the present case that all the petitioners had submitted their requisite qualification along with certificate of Drawing Master before the respondent for their appointment. After test and interview, the merit list was prepared by the respondent concerned wherein the petitioners were declared higher in merit but later on instead of appointment of petitioners, the other candidates were appointed on the ground that the Drawing Master certificate obtained by the petitioners from Institutions situated in Jamshoru and Karachi are not equivalent to the certificate which was prerequisite for the post of Drawing Master. Counsel for the petitioners referred to the recruitment policy. He also referred to the advertisement published on 11-2-2007 in which the required qualification was F.A/F.Sc. with certificate of Drawing Master from any recognized institution. According to the recruitment policy as well as said publication petitioners on the patch-wise criteria had passed their examination on 31-5-1997. In the first merit 'list displayed by the respondents, the petitioners had qualified and stood first in the merit list. The respondents on the pretext that the certificate of Drawing Master is not obtained from the recognized institution, who were ignored in the said appointment and the case of the petitioners remained pending after verification of the Drawing Master certificate. Thereafter, the concerned institution wherefrom the petitioners had obtained the D.M. certificate were asked for the verification of the said certificate. This Court too, had directed the concerned institution for the verification of the certificate.

7. In the similar nature case wherein the D.M. certificate wasobtained from Jamshoru verified in a case by Abbottabad Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No.66 of 2009 titled "Muhammad Banaris v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" wherein it is held that the D.M. certificate by Jamshoru is competent and the recognized one.

8. In the present case, the D.M. certificate qualify from all corners as a genuine certificate issued by the recognized institution, which was the requirement of the recruitment policy as mentioned above. We have gone through the merit list which clearly indicates that the petitioners have been deprived on lame excuse on the ground of delaying tactics regarding the verification of D.M. certificate obtained by the petitioners. It was also pointed out that respondent in subsequent appointment had also appointed other candidates who had obtained D.M. certificates from the same Institutions whereas, petitioners has been deprived though they have also qualified from the same Institutions, hence act of respondents is discriminatory and is utter violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. Instead of petitioners who were at better pedestal in the merit list, the other candidates who were below at the merit list as compared to the petitioners have been appointed which apparently shows the mala fide on the part of respondents.- After thrashing the entire record, we have come to the conclusion that petitioners have wrongly been deprived of appointment against the post of D.M. which requires interference by this Court. In the light of above discussions, facts and circumstances of the case, all the writ petitions are allowed and respondents are directed to appoint the petitioners against the said post positively. HBT/254/P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions allowed.