2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

5. Inter Court Appeal No. 11.18 of 1999 was preferred against the order dated 13‑11‑1997. It was disposed of on 17‑3‑1999 with the following directions:‑‑ The learned Additional Advocate‑General has assured that the scrutiny would be transparent fair, conducted in an honest manner and without harassment to any one and after hearing the affected persons. It is added that the person/candidate who did not secure the appointment through under‑hand means but his appointment was purely on merit would be protected.

6. The appointment orders of all the appellants were cancelled due to non‑fulfilment of merit criteria vide orders dated 19‑2‑1994, 1‑3‑1994, A 30‑6‑1999; 8‑8‑1999, 20‑8‑1999, 23‑8‑1999, 1‑9‑1999, 2‑9‑1999, 4‑9‑1999 and 11‑12‑1999 by Deputy District Education Officer (Male and Female) Tehsil Sialkot, Daska, and Pasrur of District Sialkot.

7. The departmental appeals were dismissed by District Education Officers (Male and Female) Sialkot vide orders dated 9‑9‑1999, 13‑9‑1999, 17‑9‑1999, 20‑9‑1999, 21‑9‑1999, 9‑10‑1999, 5‑11‑1999, 6‑11‑1999, 1‑12‑1999, 4‑12‑1999, 7‑12‑1999, 8‑12‑1999, 29‑4‑2000, 10‑5‑2000, 7‑7‑2000, 14‑7‑2000, 29‑7‑2000 and 4‑9‑2000. Hence these appeals.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants, District Attorney, District Education Officer (Male) Sialkot‑ and have perused the record and objections to the memorandum of appeals submitted by the respondents. ,

9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the posts of P. T. C. teachers were advertised in the press. The appellants applied for the posts. They were interviewed by the District Recruitment Committee and were appointed by the competent Authority consequent upon the recommendations of Recruitment Committee Sialkot. The candidates who were not appointed as P.T.C. teachers, filed writ petitions in the High Court. The High Court vide order dated 30‑11‑1997 directed the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman, District Recruitment Committee Sialkot to undertake the process of scrutiny of merit of the writ petitioners and the appellants/P.T.C. teachers. All the appointments of the P.T.C. teachers should be reconsidered on merits. Till the finalization of the exercise the persons who are working shall not be disturbed. The High Court in the Inter Court Appeal further directed that the scrutiny will be transparent, fair, conducted in a honest manner and without harassment to any one and after hearing the affected persons.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that no such exercise has been made by the respondents after the decision of the High Court. The appointment orders of the appellants have been cancelled arbitrarily on the plea of non‑fulfilment of merit criteria.

11. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the appellants possess the requisite qualification of Matric P.T.C. They were appointed by the competent Authority. They served the department satisfactorily for 4 years and their services were terminated without conducting regular inquiry.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants further argued that department having itself appointed the appellants in violation of rules shall not be allowed to take benefits of its lapses in order to terminate the services of civil servants merely because it has itself committed irregularity in violation of procedure governing said appointments. Reliance was placed on 1996 SCMR 413.

13. The respondents in their objections to the memorandum of appeals have stated that the respondents reconsidered the cases of the appellants in the light of the merit lists prepared in the year 1995. The appellants did not fulfil the merit criteria. Their services were thus terminated

14. District Education Officer (Male) Sialkot stated that the appellants were appointed beyond Markaz‑wise quota posts of P.T.C. teachers

15. We have considered the arguments of the counsel for the appellants, District Attorney and have perused the record and objections to the memorandum of appeals submitted by the respondents. We have also heard District Education Officer (Male) Sialkot. It is fact that the appellants were not given personal hearing and no fresh merit lists were prepared. As such the directions of the High Court were not complied with by the respondents.

16. Merit lists in the year 1995 were prepared at district level by District Recruitment/Selection Committee headed by Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot. Deputy District Education Officer (Appointment Authority) is competent to appoint any candidate of domiciled of his Tehsil particularly when no suitable candidate from a particular markaz is available for posting against the vacancy existing in a markaz. The appellants had worked for about four years and they were paid their salaries regularly. Nobody raised this objection during tile tenure of their service and even in the writ petitions before the High Court. The respondents are thus estopped from raising this plea at this stage.

17. It was held in 1993 SCMR 603 that for resolving controversial questions of fact, proper course would be to hold a full‑fledged inquiry where evidence has to be recorded and opportunity of cross‑examination has to be given, otherwise findings recorded would be based more on conjecturers than on evidence. The services of the appellants were terminated without conducting regular inquiry against them and without affording the opportunity to produce their defence.

18. According to the Government of the Punjab, Services, General Administration and Information Department's Notification No.SOR(S & GAD)‑15‑1‑71, dated 5‑3‑1974 the authority competent to award punishment is District Education Officer and the appellate authority is Deputy Director Schools of the concerned Division. This fact has been conceded by the District Attorney and District Education Officer (Male) Sialkot. District Education Officer raised the plea that the orders were passed on the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Sialkot. The jurisdiction is vested by law/rules and not by the officers/Courts. The orders of removal from service were passed by Deputy District Education Officers concerned and appellants' orders have been passed by District Education Officer concerned. They were not competent to pass the said orders. The orders of cancellation of the appointments/removal from service and rejection of the appeals are thus ab initio void and cannot be sustained. Alt the appeals are accepted. The impugned orders dated 19‑2‑1994, 1‑3‑1994, 30‑6‑1999, 8‑8‑1999, 20‑8‑1999, 23‑8‑1999, 1‑9‑1999, 2‑9-1999, 4‑9‑1999, 11‑12‑1999, 9‑9‑1999, 13‑9‑1999, 17‑9‑1999, 20‑9‑1999, 21‑9‑1999, 9‑10‑1999, 5‑11‑1999, 6‑11‑1999, 1‑12‑1999. 4‑12‑1999, 7‑12‑1999, 8‑12‑1999, 29‑4‑2000, 10‑5‑2000, 7‑7‑2000, 14‑7‑2000. 29‑7‑2000 and 4‑9‑2000 so far as the same relate to the appellants are set aside. The appellants are reinstated in service. The intervening period shall be treated as leave of the kind due. The de novo proceedings are ordered. The authority i.e. District Education Officer, shall issue show‑cause notices to the appellants clearly mention the allegations against them and shall proceed further strictly in accordance with the Punjab Civil Servants (E & D) Rules, 1999.

19. This order will dispose of 381 appeals

20. There will be no order as to costs. H.B.T./P.S.T Appeals accepted.