2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Khadim Hussain Sindhu for Respondent No.

1. Sardar Ali, District Education Officer (M-EE), Sheikhupura, Departmental Representative for Respondent No.4. Date of hearing: 14th May, 2003. Muhammad Latif, former PTC Teacher, has brought in challenge order, dated 2-10-2000 passed by Director Education Officer (M-EE), Sheikhupura, and order, dated 23-11-2002 by Director Public Instruction (EE), Punjab, Lahore, maintaining in appeal penalty of removal from service imposed vide order, dated 2-10-2000.

2. Appellant was appointed as PTC Teacher on 30-9-,1993 but was served with a show-cause notice on 3-7-2000 directing him to bring his original certificates alongwith Service Book before the District Education Officer (M-EE), Sheikhupura. According to the appellant, he satisfied the officer about his certificates and entry in service through legal mode but surprisingly without hearing him, he was removed from service vide the order now impugned.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the show-cause notice referred to the production of his original certificates and Service Book and nowhere in the said notice it was mentioned that he should explain why his service be not brought to an end as he secured his entry not on merit. It was further contended that neither any hearing was extended to him by the District Education Office (M-EE). Sheikupuranor any inquiry was held, therefore, the whole process was contrary to law and required reversal as miscarriage of justice has been caused. Conversely, learned District Attorney, by the departmental/representative present with record was supported both the orders original and the appellant.

4. I have attended to the arguments at length and perused the record.

5. It is true that the show-cause notice requires the appellant to produce the original certificates alongwith Service Book for checking by the District Education Officer (M-EE), Sheikhuprua. However, during the hearing which has been provided to the appellant after checking his complete record. It transpired that the appellant was appointed out or merit. The matter becomes more clear after the perusal of the appellate A order, dated 23-11-2002. Appellant was not only personally heard, his view-point was recorded and finding was given thereon. Similarly, record brought by the District Education Officer (M-EE), Sheikhupura was thoroughly scrutinized. Appointment on 22-7-1993 on general seats for all Markazes of Sheikhupura Tehsil were made vide order No.1892/E-I, after interviewing the candidates who applied in response to the advertisement by the District Recruitment Committee. Similarly, appointments on special seats were made vide Order No. 1896/E-1 also, dated 22-7-1993. In none of these lists, name of the appellant appeared. However, on 30-9-1993, appellant procured an order of appointment from the Deputy District Education Officer (M-EE), Sheikhuura Teshil and the perusal of the record shows that this appointment was not in sequel to any advertisement. An anti dated application of the applicant addressed to the Deputy District Education Officer (M-EE), Shiekhupura Tehsil, that he may be appointed as PTC Teacher is on the file of the department signed in English. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that appellant with the passage of time passed the M.A. (in Punjabi) Examination. However, appellant denied his signature on the said application and replying to the Court query, stated that he does not know how to write his name in English. I need not comment any further on his aspect. Suffice to say that I am clear in my mind that the appellant secured appointment by using political clout as he could not be inducted in service on merit earlier. Appellate may be more qualified but in order to make the appointment transparent, he has to compete with other i.e. when advertisement is published in the newspaper seeking applications for appointment of a particular post.

5. The norms of justice and equity having been observed materially, appellant was well aware as to why he was called by the Authority and later on the proceedings having been taken in his presence confronting him with the lists of candidates appointed on merits, no injustice was done to the case of the appellant. The appeal brought by the appellant being without force, does not merit any interference, accordingly the same is dismissed. H.B.T./132/PST Appeal dismissed.