1999 PLP 2106 (YLR)

The brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are, that the petitioner submitted an application alongwith. medical certificate to the A.E.O., Gujranwala for ,leave, who accepted the same; the petitioner joined his duty on 10‑11‑1998; respondent No.6 directed him that petitioner should get permission for joining his duty from D.E. O./respondent No.2. The petitioner submitted an application before respondent No.2 for getting permission of joining the duty but he was not available in the office; thereafter, application was presented before respondent No.3 to allow him to join duty, who accepted the same but respondent No.6 did not allow him to join. The petitioner visited the office of respondent No.2 on. so many occasion but respondent No.2 was not available, therefore, petitioner was constrained by the aforesaid circumstances submitted an application before the Director Education, who directed the D.F.O. on 4‑1‑1999 to look into the matter personally and resolve the grievance of petitioner. Respondent No.2 directed respondent No.3 to submit report but respondent No.3 did not submit report till date. The petitioner was constrained by the circumstances to file present writ petition.

2. The petitioner's counsel contended that respondent No.2 has specific malice against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's brother got leave for one year thereafter when he joined his duty the same hurdles were also created by the same respondents and he was also constrained to file W.P. No.23088 of 1998 before this Court and was allowed to join his duty on the direction of this Court; that respondent No.6 did not allow the petitioner to join the duty on account of malice and respondent No.2 did not decide the application of petitioner in spite of the fact that Director Education forwarded his application on 4‑1‑1999; respondent No.2 did not decide the application of petitioner but he directed respondent No.3 to submit report vide his order, dated 9-1‑1999 but report was not submitted till date by respondent No.3. He further urged that petitioner is being penalized by the act of public functionaries; it is the duty and obligation of public functionaries to act in accordance with law and Constitution as is envisaged by Article 4 of the Constitution; he further stated that Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down guidelines for the public functionaries to act within the framework of Constitution and law in Zahid Akhtar's case (PLD 1995 SC 530); that it is inherent right of the petitioner that his application must be decided by respondent No.2 within reasonable time but :the same has not been decided till date in spite of the direction of his superiors.

3. In view of these circumstances, let a copy of writ petition be sent to respondent No.2, who shall look into the matter personally and decide the application of the petitioner. strictly in accordance with law, preferably within 15 days, after receiving the order of this Court.

4. Copy of writ petition and its annexures have been handed over to learned A.A.‑G., who shall send the same to respondents Nos.l and 2 for necessary action and compliance Respondent No. l is directed to see that respondent No.2 has not decided the application of petitioner in spite of his direction. It is duty and obligation of respondent No.2 to implement the lawful order of respondent No. l but he has not decided the same till date. Copy of writ petition alongwith its annexures also be sent to Secretary Education, who is directed to look into the matter that what is happening in his Department that the public functionaries are not acting in accordance with law. Disposed of. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M‑1092/L Order accordingly.