2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Common points of facts and law are involved in all the three appeals, I, therefore, proceed to decide the appeals by one order. Briefly stated the facts leading to the appeals are that Mst. Amna Rehman, appellant is Matric, P.T.C. Vide order dated 20‑11‑1990, consequent upon the selection by the District Recruitment Committee, Muzaffargarh, she was appointed as P.T.C. Teacher. Proceedings under E&D Rules, 1975 were ordered against her and on 5‑12‑1998, she was issued a show‑cause notice on the ground that she was appointed in Tehsil Kot Adu of Muzaffargarh District whereas her domicile certificate is of Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh and accordingly to Government Policy, a P.T.C. candidate resident of one Tehsil cannot be appointed in another Tehsil. Proceedings under Rule 6(3) of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 were taken and she was removed from service vide order dated 5‑5‑1999. Her departmental appeal was rejected on 22‑7‑1999. Mussarat Naureen, appellant is also Matric, P.T.C. Vide order dated 10‑10‑1990, consequent upon the selection by the District Recruitment Committee, Muzaffargarh, she was appointed as P.T.C. Teacher. Proceedings under E&D Rules, 1975 were ordered against her and on 5‑12‑1998, she was issued a show‑cause notice on the ground that she was appointed in Tehsil Kot Adu of Muzaffargarh District whereas her domicile certificate is of Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh and according to Government Policy, a P.T.C candidate resident of one Tehsil cannot be appointed in another Tehsil. Proceedings under Rule 6(3) of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 were taken and she was removed from service vide order dated 5‑5‑1999. Her departmental appeal was rejected on 7‑7‑1999. Talat Tanvir, appellant is also Matric, P.T.C. Vide order dated 5‑4‑1988, consequent upon the selection by the Tehsil Department Selection/Recruitment Committee, Kot Adu, she was appointed as P.T.C. Teacher. Proceedings under E&D Rules, 1975 were ordered against her and on 30‑8‑1998, she was issued a show‑cause notice on the ground that she was appointed in Tehsil Kot Adu of Muzaffargarh District whereas her domicile certificate is of Tehsil and District Muzaffargarh and according to Government Policy, a P.T.C. candidate resident of one Tehsil cannot be appointed in another Tehsil. Proceedings under Rule 6(3) of Punjab Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1975 were taken and she was removed from service vide order dated 2‑10‑1999. Her departmental appeal was rejected on 30‑5‑2000. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, District Attorney and have perused the record and written objections to the memorandum of appeal submitted by the respondents. Mr. Khadim Hussain Khokhar, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellants possess requisite qualification and were appointed by the competent authority and were removed from service without due course of law. He further argued that it was responsibility of the competent authority to fulfil all the codal formalities/procedure before issuing the appointment orders. Even if irregular appointment was made by the competent authority, the authority cannot terminate service of the civil servant. He relied upon 1996 SCRM 1350. It was also argued by the learned .counsel for the appellants that appellants were removed from service without conducting proper inquiry and without affording tile appellants the opportunity of cross‑examining the inquiry witnesses. He further argued that service of the employee cannot be terminated on the ground that he is not resident of Tehsil in which he/she was recruited. Learned District Attorney referred to Recruitment Rules notified vide No. SOR(III)1‑13/85, dated 27‑7‑1991 by S&GAD and argued that according to the said rules only those candidates will be eligible for recruitment who are bona fide resident of Markaz concerned. Recruitment Rules referred by the learned D.A. was notified on 27‑7‑1991 whereas the appellants were recruited on 20‑11‑1990, 10‑10‑1990 and 5‑4‑1988 i.e. before the notification of the said rules. The rules are not applicable with retrospective effect. The rules referred to above are thus not applicable in case of the appellants. According to the abovementioned rules, only those candidates will be eligible for recruitment who are bona fide resident of Markaz concerned Markaz. The Markaz have ceased to exist. There is no council at Markaz level. The respondents are aware of this fact. In the show‑cause notice, they have substituted the Tehsil by Markaz without any authority. According to Article 27 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, no citizen otherwise qualified for appointment in the service shall be discriminated against on the ground of residence or place by birth. The appeals are, therefore, accepted, the impugned orders dated 5‑5‑1999, 22‑1‑1999, 7‑7‑1999, 2‑10‑1999 and 30‑5‑2000 are set aside. The appellants are reinstated in service with all back benefits. The intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due to the appellants. The order will dispose all three appeals. H.B.T./55/P(S (Trib.) Appeals accepted/Order accordingly.