1981 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. SALEEM CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN). These 52 appeals, 24 of college teachers and 28 of school teachers of the Nationalized Schools and Colleges under MLR 118 by the Government of the Punjab involve the common question of law and facts and, therefore, disposed of by this single/consolidated judgment.

2. Briefly, the relevant facts of the case are that on 15th of March 1972, the Government of Pakistan announced its educational policy unfolding the scheme for the nationalization of the privately managed College and Schools in the country. It was, followed by M. L. R. 118 dated is April; 1972 as subsequently amended by M. L. R. 118 (Punjab Amendment Ordinance XVI of 1972 (published on 31st August, 1972, and Act No. X of 1973 (published on 21st May, 1973 in order to provide legal cover to this policy. Under para. 4 of the MLR all privately‑managed colleges situate in the Province stood nationalised with effect from 1st September, 1972. In case of privately‑managed schools situated in the Province, the Provincial Government was required to issue notification on/or after 1st October, 1972 specifying the schools to be nationalised thereunder. The Governor of Punjab accordingly issued a Notification No. S. O. (N S) 1‑2/72 dated 30th September, 1972, under paragraph 5 of the M. L. R. 118 to the effect that the privately‑managed primary. Middle and High Schools as specified therein shall stand nationalised as from the forenoon of 1st October, 1972. Since para. 5 of M. L. R. 118 provided for issuance of Notification on/or after 1st October 1972, therefore to give legal cover to the Notification dated 30th September 1972, Punjab Ordinance Temporary Establishment Act VI of 1973 was enacted. It is a common ground that all the teachers of the privately managed colleges and schools to whatever cadre they belong became Civil Servants with effect from the date of taking over of Colleges, and Schools, i.e. 1st September 1972, and 1st October, 1972, respectively. No doubt the Departmental stand before us was that the appellant became such employees only in terms of formal orders/Notifications issued by the authorities concerned.

4. Two Notifications were issued by the Governor of Punjab one regarding the Principals, Professors and Assistant Professors of Colleges and second in regard to Headmasters/Headmistresses on 24th October, 1972. The appointment of Headmasters/Headmistresses in the Schools under M. L. R. 118 were notified on ad hoc basis subject to the following conditions :‑ (1) That their appointment as such would not give them any to these posts ; (2) That they would not be entitled to claim seniority on the basis of this Notification over their colleagues in the cadres of Headmasters as well as Senior English Teachers; (3) That this Notification would not preclude Govt. from taking any further action such as examining their suitability for appointment to these posts ; (4) These appointments will last until their suitability is finally determined or they are replaced by suitable officers. It may be noticed that the persons who did not have the prescribed qualification of B. A., B. Ed. or who had reached the age of superannuation were not appointed by the above Notification. On 22nd May, 1974, the Director of Public Instructions Punjab issued Circular letter No. 127/93/MB dated the 22nd May, 1974, the relevant portion of the same is as under :‑ As you are already aware, the fixation of pay of those Senior English Teachers who were working as Heads of Nationalised High Schools on/or before 30th September, 1972, was deferred, pending determination of their seniority. As decided, a combined seniority list is to be prepared of all the Headmasters/Headmistresses of Nationalised High Schools with the Senior English Teachers of High Schools; Headmasters/Headmistresses of Middle Schools and Headmasters/Headmistresses of Junior Model Schools and their Senior English Teachers who possess the requisite qualifications of the post. The basis for determining the seniority is the total length of service in the grade, condoning gaps in service to the extent of 5 years. The Liaison Officers of District Pay Verification Committees may be asked to submit the lists by the 3rd June, 1974, with complete bio‑data. The President of the District Nationalised Schools Teachers' Association should also be associated in the completion of the exercise. As for Lahore, a special Committee has been constituted to prepare the seniority list." In accordance with the instructions embodied in the Circular letter above the present appellants who were working as Headmasters/Headmistresses of High Schools were decategorized for the purpose of preparing the combined seniority list of all Headmasters and Headmistresses of the High Schools alongwith the 'Senior English Teachers/Headmasters of Middle Schools thereby placing them in the same category. The above policy letter may be considered to be the direction for categorization of the Headmasters/Headmistresses of privately‑managed schools whose appointments have not been notified by Notification dated 24th October, 1972.

5. Similarly in the case of teachers employed in the Colleges, Notification was issued on 4th September, 1972, creating the posts of Principals of Intermediate and Degree Colleges and Professors. The appointment of all the teachers working in the Colleges were notified. However, one of the conditions of their appointment was: "These appointments are on purely temporary basis until further orders and subject to the approval of the Public Service Commission and the Constitutional provisions regarding the age of superannuation, citizenship and such rules as may be passed in regard to the service conditions of the said staff by the Government." Again on 15th May, 1974, another Notification was issued by the Government in partial Notification dated 4th 'September, 1972, and all other Notifications issued by the Government from time to time according to which the persons specified in Schedules `A' & 'B' appended to the aforesaid letter were appointed as Lecturers with effect from 1st September, 1972. However, it was provided that they were to continue to get the same pay as was drawn by them immediately before 1st September 1972, and their pay was to be fixed in NPS No. 17.

6. Lastly on 26th September, 1974 the Governor of Punjab promulgated the Punjab Nationalised Schools (Men and Women Sections) Teaching Posts Rules, 1974. In proviso to rule 4(1) to the aforesaid Rules all persons holding the posts of Headmasters/Headmistresses of private schools at the time of nationalization possessing the qualification prescribed for the Senior English Teachers were deemed to have been appointed as Senior English Teachers. The other provisions in the aforesaid Rules related to the method of recruitment to the posts of Headmasters from amongst the teachers of Nationalised Schools on the basis of their seniority as Senior English Teachers. Similarly in the case of teachers working in the Colleges vide rule 5 all the Principals of Degree Colleges/Professors, Principals of Intermediate Colleges/Assistant Professors who possessed the prescribed qualification and who were not superannuated were deemed to have been appointed as Lecturers with effect from 1st September, 1972. The appellants claim that as Headmasters Headmistresses of High Schools they held gazetted posts whereas the post of Senior English Teacher/Headmaster of Middle School was a non‑gazetted and inferior post. Similarly in the case of Assistant Professors, Professors and Principals they were decategorised as Lecturers for the purpose of making a joint seniority for the post of Assistant Professors, Professors and Principals of Intermediate and Degree Colleges.

8. The learned Government Pleader Mr. A. G. Hamayun, counsel for the respondents raised the following preliminary objections :‑ (1) No inter‑Departmental appeal or representation was filed by the appellants under section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Acts, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable and was hit by proviso (a) to section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 ; (2) That the Rules dated 26th September, 1974, as framed by the Provincial Government could not be equated with a final order as envisaged in section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, therefore, the appeal was not maintainable ; (3) That in any case the impugned appointment of the appellants dated back to October, 1972 and the appeals filed in 1976 and 1978 were badly barred by time ; and (4) That the appellants could not be treated as aggrieved persons.

9. The appellants controverted the above objections with the submissions that since the rules impugned in these appeals have been framed by the Provincial Government, therefore, no representation could be made under section 21 which prescribed such representation to the next higher authority. Only a review petition could be moved but law is well settled that a review is creation of the statute arid the rules did not provide for review to the Government in such cases. As regards the objection that the rules could not be treated as final order for the purpose of section 4 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, appellants placed reliance upon the finding given by the Division Bench of the Lahore High Court reported as Fazal Elahi Ejaz v. Government of Punjab (P L D 1977 Lah. 549) relevant at 567, that:‑ If an order can be treated to be a rule I do not see any earthly reason why the converse should not be true if what is germane to an order has been expressed in the form of a rule. If a rule or part of it is in substance an order expressed and notified in the manner required for an order, for all practical purposes including an appeal it can be treated as an order." As regards time barred, the appellants submitted that in 1972 there was no Tribunal. In any case there were serious doubts as to the competence of the Tribunal to declare the rules as ultra vires. It was only after a long drawn proceeding on this issue before the High Court and also before the Supreme Court of Pakistan that the matter was finally concluded. In any case, in terms of section 14 of the Limitation Act the delay, if any, could be condoned. As regards the last objection, the appellants argued that the respondents have not been able to disclose any valid reason for not treating the appellants as aggrieved persons.

10. After hearing both the parties we are inclined to agree with. the appellants. As regards the first point the respondents have failed to show to us that there was any right of review/representation available to the appellants against the impugned rules dated 26th September. 1974. We are clearly of the opinion that after the decision by the Punjab Government expressed in terms of 1974 Rules the appellants could not file any representation nor right of review was available to them. We also uphold the plea of the appellants that the rules in this case could be equated with the impugned order as already held by the Lahore High Court. In the ruling cited above. The respondents have not produced any authority to the contrary nor have they been able to advance any cogent ground to persuade us to hold otherwise. We accordingly repel this objection also. As regards the objection as to limitation, we again find considerable force in the plea of the appellants that the matter was not free from doubt. It was only after the decision of the Supreme Court that the controversy was set at rest that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the vires of the rules. As regards the last objection of the Government Pleader we consider it appropriate to deal with this aspect of the case along with the merits of the case. Some of the appellants were appointed and functioning as such before the nationalization while the other persons were appointed after the nationalization and some of them were ineligible as they lacked the prescribed qualification and some were given mere acting charge. Thus all the cases were not identical and the finding had to be deferred.

11. On merits, Mr. Shahzad Jehangir the learned counsel appearing for the Assistant Professors Professors/Principals raised the following contentions :‑‑ (1) That the provisions of para. 7(2) of M. L. R. 118 protected both pay and status of the appellants and they were entitled to continue in service after nationalisation on same terms and conditions as were enjoyed by them before nationalization. The learned counsel in this behalf relied upon the decision of the Lahore High Court reported as P L D 1977 Lah. 549: relevant at page 574 (para. 44) .‑ "The only other interpretation possible is to categorise teachers in accordance with their status and guarantee of scales of pay paid to the teachers of comparable status in Government service subject to the teachers being qualified to hold that post in Government service. While fixing the pay therefore reference must be had to the qualifications." And also (at page 575, para 50): "The interpretation canvassed by Mr. Mahmood Ali is the only interpretation possible. It is to the effect that teachers of a class in the privately‑managed schools should retain their status after nationalization and the question of qualification, seniority and experience should be taken under consideration with respect to the teachers of that class only. This is in accord with the object of this legislation. Despite the departure made by the Government from this principle, it appears clear that originally this was the thinking and interpretation of the Government." Relying upon the above Mr. Shahzad Jehangir vehemently contended that the guarantee of scale of pay as provided in para. 7(2) of M. L. R. 118 implied the guarantee in respect of status comparable to the Govt. employees with similar experience, seniority and qualifications. He also relied upon Article 275 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) which is to the following effect :‑ "275.‑‑(1) Subject to the Constitution and until law is made under Article 240 any person who, immediately before the commencing day, was in the service of Pakistan shall, as from that day, continue in the service of Pakistan on the same terms and conditions as were applicable to him under the Interim Constitution of the Islamic‑Republic of Pakistan immediately before that day." Thus the learned counsel argued that appellants were entitled to continue as Principals/Professors/Assistant Professors on the same terms and conditions :‑ (ii) That the Punjab Nationalization of Schools (Men and Women Sections) Teaching Posts Rules, 1974 in so far as it purported to appoint the appellants en bloc as Lecturers in NPS 17 it had the effect of reducing them in rank which could not be validly done by the Department particularly when no show‑cause notice has been served upon the appellants. (iii) That the appellants enjoyed the status of Assistant Professors/Professors/Principals prior to 1st September, 1972. In so far as the rules published on 26th September, 1974, had the effect of denying the aforesaid status to the appellants the same were clearly retrospective in operation. The law is well settled that the rules could not operate retrospectively. The learned counsel in this regard cited (i) P L D 1958 Lah. 180. (ii) P L D 1977 Lah. 549. (iii) P L D 1961 S C 605. (iv) PLD 1975 S C106. (iv) That the Rules of 1974 were ultra wires the Article 241 of the Constitution. According to the learned counsel under Article 240 the terms and conditions of service of Provincial servants had to be regulated by law made by Provincial Assembly and the rules have to be framed under the Act of the Provincial Assembly and till such time the existing rules were to continue in terms of Article 241 of the Constitution. The contention of the learned counsel was that the 1974 Rules having been issued under para. 13 of M. L. R. 118 could not be treated to have been framed by or under the Act of the Provincial Assembly. (v) That the case of respondents consistently had been that the Regula tion as such did not nationalise the services of the appellants nor the MLR 118 in any way related to the status of the appellants. Thus para. 13 which authorised the Provincial Government to frame rules for carrying out the purpose of this Regulation could not conceivably authorise the frame of rules affecting the status of the appellants. (vi) The learned counsel contended that even the instruction/notification dated 15th May, 1974, issued by the DPI Punjab was not supported by any law. With the above contentions the learned counsel pressed for acceptance of the appeals.

12. Ch. Hamiduddin, Advocate, appearing for teachers submitted that M. L. R. 118 which endeavoured to implement the Education policy was published on 1st April, 1972, and the notification for nationalization of schools was published on 30th September, 1972, and the notification nationalizing the services of the appellants was issued on 24th October, 1972. On 22nd May, 1974, the D. P. I. issued orders categorising the appellants Headmasters/Headmistresses as SETS. and eventually the Punjab Nationalization of Schools (Teaching Posts) Rules, 1974 were notified on 26th September, 1974, which had the similar effect. Writ petition was filed on 18th February, 1975, which was rejected on 21st July, 1975, and the I. C. A. was also rejected on 14th October 1976, as incompetent. Present appeal was filed on 11th November, 1976. The department on 6th August, 1976 had provisionally allowed NPS 17 to the appellants. In this appeal they assailed the vires of Rules dated 26th September, 1974 and the orders dated 6th August, 1976 allowing NPS 17 provisionally to the appellants. The appellants particularly questioned the vires of rule 4 of the 1974 Teaching rules which was as under :‑ "4. (1) Any person who is in the service of a nationalized school on or before the 4th of March, 1972 and continued in such service till 31st August 1972, was below the age of 58 years on the latter date and is a citizen of Pakistan possessing the qualifications and other conditions of eligibility prescribed by Government for the teachers of the schools maintained by it, shall be deemed to have been appointed, to the post, other than the post of Headmaster or Headmistress of a High School, which he was holding at the time of the nationalization of the schools: Provided that a person holding the post of Headmaster or Headmistress of a High School at the time of nationalization of the School, and possessing the qualification prescribed for the post of Senior English Teacher shall be deemed to have been appointed as Senior English Teacher and the posts of Headmasters or Headmistresses shall be filled in accordance with these Rules. (2) Total number of posts of Headmasters or Headmistresses of High Schools as determined immediately before coming into force of those rules shall be filled by selection from among the persons holding posts of Senior English Teachers, Senior English Teachers (Technical), Senior English Teachers (Commerce), and Headmasters of Middle Schools under these Rules and thereafter 85 percent. vacancies occurring in such posts, shall be filled by selection from among the persons holding the posts of Senior English Teachers, Senior English Teachers (Technical), Senior English Teachers (Commerce) and Headmasters of Middle Schools under these Rules with not less than 8 years service as such and the remaining 15 per cent. of such vacant posts shall stand abolished from the cadre and stand transferred to the appropriate cadre of the teachers of the Schools maintained by Government. (3) Total vacancies in the posts of Senior English Teachers, Senior English Teachers (Technical), Senior English Teachers (Commerce) and Headmasters of Middle Schools, existing immediately, before coming into force of these rules shall be filled by promotion from among the persons who possess the qualifications prescribed for the post of Senior English Teacher but are holding lower posts under these rules and thereafter 50 per cent. of the vacancies occurring in such posts shall be filled by promotion from among the persons referred to above and the remaining 50 per cent. of such vacant posts shall stand abolished from the cadre and stand transferred to the appropriate cadre of the teachers of the Schools maintained by the Government. (4) The posts of S. V. Ts, CTs. and JVCs. falling vacant in a cadre stand abolished from the cadre and transferred to the appropriate cadre of teachers of the Schools maintained by the Government." According to the learned counsel the aforesaid Rules are ultra vires of M. L. R. 118 which guaranteed pay and status to the appellants and Article 268 of the Constitution which guaranteed the right to continue service in the same terms and conditions. He argued that the en bloc appointment of the appellants as SETs. was wholly unauthorised and unwarranted. He also reiterated the arguments advanced by Mr. Shahzad Jehangir that the Rules framed under para. 13 of the M. L. R. 118 travel beyond the scope of the Regulation. The appellants submitted that in September 1974, the terms and conditions of the appellants were to be governed by the Civil Servants Act, 1974 or the Rules framed thereunder which had come into force long ago. The learned counsel went on to contend that the nationalization in its scope also included the nationalization of staff and students. He relied upon the definition of Schools as appeared at page 1478 of the Corpus Juris Secundum: "The word `School' is a generic term of many definitions, denoting an institution or place for instructions or education or the collective body of instructors and pupils in any such place or institution. The number of persons being taught does not determine whether the place is a school." The learned counsel relying upon the above definition submitted that the School included the staff and the students. He submitted drat Schools are nationalized vide notification dated 30th September, 1972 (effective from 1st October, 1972). services of the appellants were nationalized vide notification dated 24th October, 1972, and service books were directed to be prepared on 22nd March, 1972, and services of about 578 Headmasters were nationalized vide Notification dated 26th February, 1974. Thus the appellants were entitled to continue service as Headmasters without any interference. He heavily relied upon para. 7 read with para. 5 of M. L. R. 118 to elicit the guarantees to continue in service on the same terms and conditions i.e., in the capacity of Headmasters. He also brought to our notice that M. L. R. 118 contained express provisions to prohibit the Management of private Schools to effect any change in the terms and conditions of service of any employee who was in service before 15th March, 1972: ' He also raised objection as to the retrospective operation of the 1974 Rules. He argued that the Rules were; ultra wires of the Constitution and section 15 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act according to which the civil servants were liable to such disciplinary action and penalties and in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed. According to the appellant the impugned rules having not been framed under the Civil Servants Act, the rules framed under Para 13 of the M. L. R. 118 were clearly ultra vires. Mr. Wasim Sajjad, Advocate, who appeared in Appeals Nos. 178, 179 and 180 also stressed that the departmental authority had no power to fix seniority afresh of the teachers of the nationalized institution, the status and pay of whom was guaranteed by M. L. R.

118. According to him, there was no power with the authorities to appoint the appellants as SETS. He also submitted that para. 13 of M. L. R. 118 did not authorise the framing of rules regarding appellants' status. He contended that M. L. R. 118 could not be treated as an Act of the Provincial Assembly in terms of Article 240 of the Constitution and thus there was no authority for framing any rules in pursuance to MLR 118 after enforcement of the Constitution. According to him, after the promulgation of the Constitution it was only an Act of the Provincial Assembly which could validly provide for the frame of Rules. He referred to Article 260 of the Constitution which defined the Provincial Law to mean "law made by or under the authority of the Provincial Assembly". It was argued that M. L. R. 118 at the best could be treated as an existing law under Article 268 of the Constitution. He placed reliance on P L D 1964 S C 673 in this regard. Mr. A. K. Dogar, Advocate, appearing in Appeals Nos. 386, 342 and 260 appearing for unqualified Headmasters, assailed the provisions of rule 4 of the Teaching Rules, 1974 and Memo. No. 1/7‑75/24537/HS‑1, dated 20th November 1976, issued by the D. P. I. Punjab which purported to appoint the appellants as SETS. He contended that the appellants have been working as Headmasters since long and the requirement as to the qualifications could not be prescribed with retrospective effect. He' relied upon P L D 1965 Lah. 147 in support of his contention above. He submitted that the qualifications were necessary for initial entry into service and not for promotion. Mr. Abid Hasan Minto appearing in Appeal No. 157 did not add anything to the contentions already raised by other appellants before us. He rather adopted the same. Mr. Mohammad Yasin and Mr. Saadullah, Advocates, appearing in Appeals Nos. 170 and 344 submitted written arguments containing pleas which were covered the arguments already advanced by other counsel. Dr. Farooq A. Hasan appearing for some of the respondents, in the first instance raised the plea that there was nothing in para. 7(2) which guaranteed the status or pay to the staff of the nationalized institutions. In his view services of the staff were not at all nationalized under M. L. R. 118 and para. 7 has no application to their case. He pointed out that para 7 applied only to those schools which had not been nationalized and were still allowed to function under private management. He invited our attention to para 12 of the Regulation which empowered the Government to make exceptions in favour of certain schools. He submitted that undisputedly some of the schools were still running under the private management. Thus the condition in para. 7(2) with regard to payment of salary to the teachers employed in such schools comparable to the teachers, of equal experience, qualifications and seniority employed in Government schools was meant for such schools. He submitted that the expression such used in para 5 of M. L. R. 118. clearly implied the existence of the schools under the private management even after the promulgation of M, L. R.

118. He endeavored to re‑enforce his contention by making reference to an amendment to para. 7 of M. L. R. 118 vide Punjab Ordinance No. V of 1976 which was to the following effect: "Provided that, with the general or special permission of the Provincial Government, any person may be promoted, employed or engaged, on such terms and conditions as may be approved by the Provincial Government, against a newly created post or a vacancy caused by the retirement, or expiry of the stipulated period of employment, or termination of services in accordance with the terms and condi tions of employment, of a person who was employed or engaged before the fifteenth day of March, 1972." He also referred to the definition of college/school as contained in para. 2 of the regulation which did not indicate that the school included the staff. In the alternate he argued that even if para 7(2) was applicable to the taken over school, it only guaranteed equal scale of pay to the teachers as were availed by teachers employed in Government schools with similar qualifications, seniority and experience. He seriously disputed the conclusions arrived at in P L D 1977 Lah. 549 and submitted that contrary view expressed by his Lordship Mr. Justice Shafiur Rehman in W.P. No. 441‑S/73 in Husan Ara Bokhari's case as decided in November, 1973 was correct. He also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in ICA No. 129/73 decided on 25th November, 1974. The following observations from the aforesaid judgments were implicitly relied upon: "What, has therefore been protected in express terms is comparable remuneration of the teachers. They would, therefore, claim as of right under law continuation of their service same conditions of service. The law does not guarantee them the post as such but only the remuneration according to specified scale." (By Mr. Justice Shafi‑ur‑Rehman). And from the Division Bench decision: "So it is school itself and such property as is attached to the school and it does not per se catapult employees of school into Government service in the capacity in which they were serving. At least there are no guarantees held out." He also submitted that the rules were clearly intra vires. He further submitted that even if the rules were held to be ultra vires still under the rules of equity and good policy, the appellants were not entitled to continue as Headmasters. He contended that there is no warrant for the proposition that there was intention to validate the appointments of unqualified and unsuitable persons. It was certainly not in keeping with the education policy. He went on to argue that appointments of the appellants in any case have to be regulated by West Pakistan Education Service Rules, 1963 which require minimum service of 8 years as SET to be eligible to the appointment of Headmaster. Thus unqualified persons were not entitled to continue as Headmaster. He also pointed out that on 4th April, 1977 appellants were allowed NPS 17 provisionally which contained condition No. 3 that they were liable to reversion as SET without notice which condition corresponds to the similar condition in the notification dated 24th October, 1972 and thus the appellants were estopped to raise this objection at such a belated stage. With these submissions the learned counsel pressed for the rejection of the appeals. Ch. Mohammad Arif, Advocate, appearing for some of the respondents invited our attention to the definition clause of M. L. R. 118 which defined the school. He stated that there was nothing in para 5 or para. 7 of M. L. R. 118 about the staff. According to him the omission was deliberate and could not be supplied by the Court. He argued that the appellants were asking this Court to read something in paras. 5 and 7 of M L R 118 which did not appear there. He submitted that the rules were intra vires as something had to be done to carry out the purpose of the M. L. R. Mian Hidayat Ali Talib, Advocate, argued that the finding of the High Court in Fazal Elahi Ijaz's case was obiter and should be ignored. According to him, once the Division Bench has come to the conclusion that this case was triable by the Service Tribunal, the condition to reject the appeal was irresistible and the decision was complete. Thus the rest of the findings were surplusage and merits to be ignored. He cited PLD 1974 SC 124, P L D 1973 S C 230 and P L D 1952 Lah. 31 in support of his contention above. Lastly, Mr. A. G. Hamayun, Government Pleader pointed out that the cases of Headmasters could be divided into six categories ; (a) Headmasters who were qualified and appointed before 14th March 1972, and awarded NPS 17 with effect from 1st October, 1972 (9 appeals). (b) Headmasters who were qualified and appointed before 14th March 1972, but were not in receipt of pay in NPS 17, (200 appeals). (c) Headmasters/Headmistresses who were qualified and appointed as such with effect from 1st October, 1972 and awarded NPS 17 with effect from the same date (4 appeals). (d) Headmasters/Headmistresses who were qualified and appointed on or after 1st October, 1972 as incharge of the institutions due to occurrence of sudden vacancies (4 appeals). (e) Headmasters/Headmistresses who were not qualified but were appointed as such before 14th March, 1972 or on/after 1st October, 1972, in their own pay scale (5 appeals). (f) Headmasters/Headmistresses of middle schools who were not qualified as SETs (4 appeals). He submitted that the last four categories were mostly the appointees as Headmasters after nationalization, therefore, there was no question of any protection to them by M. L. R.

118. Even in the few cases the appointment though dated pre‑14th March, 1970 but they were admittedly unqualified hands and as such were not entitled to any protection as they lacked the prescribed qualifications. He submitted that on the terms and conditions of their appointment they were not entitled to continue and they could not have any grievance if they were appointed as SETS. With regard to the first two categories he adopted the arguments advanced by other Counsel. In addition he submitted that they were merely contractual employees and were not civil servants till 1st October, 1972 as they acquired the status of civil servants for the first time after nationalization. Therefore, their grievances prior to 1st October, 1972 were not justifiable. With these submissions the learned Government Pleader prays for dismissal of the appeal. After hearing the parties and also going through the relevant records we are of the opinion that the Punjab Nationalized Schools (Men and Women Sections) Teaching Post Rules, 1974, framed by the Government of Punjab and notified on 26th September, 1974 under paragraph 131A of the M. L. R. 118 are ultra vires. Para 13 of M. L. R. 118 provides as follows :‑ "The appropriate Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make such rules as appear to it necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of this Regulation. Explanation.‑In this paragraph, "Appropriate Government" meats‑ (a) in relation to the Islamabad Capital Territory, the Central Government ; and (b) in relation to a Province, the Provincial Government." Evidently the paragraph 13 allowed the rules to be framed only to carry out the purposes of M. L. R. 118 itself. During the course of arguments before us the contesting Respondents and the Department have unanimously and vehemently contended that there is nothing in M. L. R. 118 except the scale of pay which could possibly relate or cover the case as to the status of the staff employed in the taken over institutions. It was rather rep‑resented before us that even para. 7 of the M. L. R. 118 pertained to the cases of staff employed in the privately managed Schools which had not yet been taken over. In this context we asked the respondents to apprise us of any provisions in the M. L. R. 118 embodying the purposes (other than scale of pay) which purportedly were carried out by framing the Rules on 26th September, 1974 qua the status of the appellants. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have not been able to point out any provisions in M. L. R. which could possibly cover this aspect of the case or authorise the frame of the Rules in question. Since the power of the Government to frame the Rules was restricted to carry out the purpose of M. L. R. and since none of the provisions contained under M. L. R. 118 concerned the state of the employees of the taken over institutions, therefore, the impugned Rules, in so far as it purported to determine and fix the status of the appellants before us, were ultra vires of M. L. R.

118. At the best the Rules as framed and notified on 2 6th September, 1974 could relate to fixing the scales of pay in terms of para 7(2) of the M. L. R.

118. Even the decision in Writ Petition No. 441‑S of 1977 in Husan Ara Bukhari's case also laid down that the M. L. R. only concerned the employees of the taken over institutions to the extent of their pay. We respectfully follow the same. As regards the contention of the respondents that para 7(2) applied only to the persons working in the privately‑managed Schools, not yet taken over, the same is not acceptable. The plain reading of para 7 shows that the provisions contained therein apply to schools and colleges alike, vide para 4, ail the colleges in the Province without any exception stood nationalized. As such there was no need to make any provision in respect of "colleges'' in Para 7(2) in respect of privately‑managed colleges as there was none. Thus the intention appeared to the contrary that it also applied to schools and colleges which were in private management before 1st October, 1972 or 1st September 1972, respectively. We are also in agreement with the reasoning and the decision of the Division Bench reported as P L D 1977 Lah. 549 that the rules framed under M. L. R. could not be deemed to have been framed under section 23 of the Punjab Civil c Servants Act, 1974. The following observations appearing in Para 24 of the aforesaid judgment may be reproduced with advantage :‑ "

24. There is no legal justification for holding that a rule under one statute can be validated as a rule under another enactment. A rule‑making power in an enactment is given for the purposes of carrying out the purposes of that particular statute. The authority to make rules is delegated by the parliament or the Provincial Assembly to particular authorities. In each case, the rule‑making powers are considered to be subordinate legislation as they are subordinate to the enactment under which they have been framed. If the rule framed under one enactment, is considered by the Court to be a rule under another enactment, which was never in contemplation of the rule‑making authority, though the same authority may have the power of rule‑making under both enactments, the Courts will be considered to be substituting themselves for the rule‑making authority under that enactment. This is certainly not the object of law. The question whether a rule has been made within the powers granted by a particular enactment or is within the four corners of that enactment, can be considered only with reference to that particular statute. If the rule‑making authority under different statutes feels inclined to frame the same rule under that statute, it must be left open to that authority to frame such rule and not to force a rule framed under another enactment upon such authority." We respectfully follow the conclusion and the reasoning indicated above. It may be observed that none of decisions of Lahore High Court cited before us stand in the way of the conclusions as to the view of Rules. In Writ Petition No. 441‑S/73 (decided by Mr. Justice Shafi‑ur‑Rehman) and L. P. A. No. 129/1973 in Hussan Ara Bukhari's case the High Court held that M. L. R. 118 did not nationalize the services of the staff nor it provided for any protection of status. Even on the reasoning employed and the conclusion arrived at in P L D 1977 Lah. 549 the status of teachers was protected and para. 13 could not authorise the frame or Rules adversely affecting the status of appellant. Thus in either case the Rules had to be held as ultra vires. In the result the appeals filed by College Teachers and the Headmasters who were qualified and stood appointed as such on or before 14th March, 1972 are hereby accepted and the Government is directed to frame the Rules afresh in accordance with the Law. It is needless to observe that fresh Rules will be framed without any further loss of time in order to conclude the controversy which is quite old. However, in case of Headmasters falling in categories (c) to (f) (page 21 of this judgment), i.e. unqualified, though appointed before 14th March 1972, or thereafter, on ad hoc basis or as stopgap arrangements and others who being senior most were just put in charge as Headmasters/Headmistresses or were posted to work in their own pay and scale on/after 1st October, 1972, the learned Government Pleader contended that they could not be treated as Headmasters/Headmistresses till the time of the nationalization and their appointments were either ad hoc or purely temporary, liable to be terminated at the will of the Government. The' case of such teachers is clearly distinguishable and they could not possibly claim any protection under para. 7 of the M. L. R.

118. They held appointments on the terms sanctioned by the authorities concerned. In any event the protection envisaged vide para. 7 of M. L. R. 118 was conditioned by comparable qualifications, experience and seniority. Even if no Rules were framed, the person who lacked requisite qualification prescribed for Headmasters or S. E. Ts. working in Government schools could not be considered to have any right to continue as Headmasters/Headmistresses nor they could have any valid grievance if they were appointed as S. E. Ts. in accordance with the terms of service specified in various Notifications issued from time to time by the authorities concerned. Their Appeals Nos. 145/185, 178/191, 199/194, 180/195, 170/197, 358/369, 332/256, 273, 329/255, 348/260, 386, 366, 41/196, 343/259 and 344 all of 1978 and Nos. 7 of 1979 thus have no force and are hereby dismissed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. Before concluding this judgment we may observe that in view of our conclusion above the rest of the contentions raised by the respective parties did not call for any adjudication by us. Appeals dismissed.