2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD FEROZ Versus DEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER (EDUCATION) and others
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD FEROZ Versus DEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER (EDUCATION) and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal, Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD FEROZ Versus DEPUTY DISTRICT OFFICER (EDUCATION) and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iqbal A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Hussain, A.E.O. for Respondents.
- 3. Mr. Iqbal A. Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner urged with vehemence that the petitioner was appointed on 17-7-2000 pursuant to advertisement dated 27-6-2000 wherein the prescribed qualification for PTC teacher was mentioned as Matric and not F.A. It is conceded that rectification was made on 25-7-2000 and the qualification of Matric was substituted to that of F.A. which could not affect the appointment of petitioner who was appointed on 17-7-2000 and therefore, his services could not have been terminated under the principle of locus poenitentiae.
- 4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of record of the case. The order impugned has been perused. There is no denying the fact that initial qualification of PTC teacher was F.A. as prescribed by means of instruction/policy No. PA/D.S. (S) Misc. 97, dated 12-3-1997 issued by the Secretary Education Government of the Punjab, Lahore read with Letter No.9113/Admn. 11, dated 27-8-2001 issued by the Director Public Instructions (EE) Punjab, Lahore. It appears from the said policy that academic qualification was enhanced for appointment as PTC teacher from Matric with PTC to that of F.A./F.Sc. with PTC w.e.f. 12-3-1997 the inadvertent omission regarding qualification appearing in the advertisement made in daily "Jang" on 27-6-2000 was rectified by means of another advertisement got published in daily Nawa-e-Waqt on 25-7-2000 making it abundant clear that the prescribed qualification for PTC would be F.A. and not Matric. The petitioner was admittedly not qualified to be appointed as PTC teacher due to lack of qualification as admittedly he was Matric. It is, however, to be noted that the petitioner cannot be held guilty for misconduct because the wrong publication at first instance was made by the department itself. We are not persuaded to agree with learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that after having appointed the service of petitioner could not have been terminated on the principle of locus poenitentiae because the said principle can only be pressed into service to protect the legal rights based on lawful orders. The principle of locus poenitentiae was available to the Government or relevant Authorities and further Authority which was competent to make order had power to undo it, but such order could not be withdrawn or rescinded once it had taken legal effect and created certain rights in favour of any individual. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Director-General v. Muhammad Abdul Latif 2003 SCMR 410, Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah PLD 1969 SC 407, Chief Secretary v. Sher Muhammad Makhdoom PLD 1991 SC 973, Aman-ul-Haq v. P.P.S.C. PLD 1989 Lah. 196, Government of Sindh v. Niaz Ahmad 1991 SCMR 2293, Muhammad Nawaz v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1420, Abdul Haque Indhar v. Province of Sindh 2000 SCMR 907, Adreshir Cowasjee v. Karachi Building Control Authority 1999 SCMR 2883, Chairman, Selection Committee v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad 1997 SCMR 15 and Engineer-in-Chief Branch v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 25-6-2002 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, passed in Appeal No.413 of 2002).
R. 6(3)-General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.21
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Principle of locus poenitentiae
Civil servant was Matric by qualification and was appointed as PTC teacher
Academic qualification was enhanced for appointment as PTC teacher from Matric with PTC to that of FA/FSc with PTC prior to the advertisement in newspaper for the post
Inadvertent omission regarding qualification appearing in the advertisement made in the newspaper was rectified by means of another advertisement published in newspapers making it abundantly clear that the prescribed qualification . for PTC teacher would be FA and not Matric
Civil servant was appointed as such but he was removed from service after departmental proceedings under R.6(3) of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975
Appeal against the removal was dismissed by Service Tribunal
Plea raised by the civil servant was that after having appointed, the service of the civil servant could not have been terminated on the principle of locus poenitentiae
Principle of locus poenitentiae could only be pressed into service to protect the legal rights based on lawful orders
Principle of locus poenitentiae was available to the Government or relevant authorities which were competent to make order and had power to undo it but such order could not be withdrawn or rescinded once it had taken legal effect and had created certain rights in favour of any individual
Civil servant could not be held guilty for misconduct because the wrong publication at first instance was made by the department itself
Civil servant was not guilty of misconduct and the petition was converted into appeal and penalty of removal from service imposed pursuant to the disciplinary action under R.6(3) of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, was converted to that of termination simpliciter from service due to lack of qualification
Appeal was disposed of accordingly. Director-General v. Muhammad Abdul Latif 2003 SCMR 410; Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah PLD 1969 SC 407; Chief Secretary v. Sher Muhammad Makhdoom PLD 1991 SC 973; Aman-ul-Haq v. P.P.S.C. PLD 1989 Lah. 196; Government of Sindh v. Niaz Ahmad 1991 SCMR 2293; Muhammad Nawaz v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1420; Abdul Haque Indhar v. Province of Sindh 2000 SCMR 907; Adreshir Cowasjee v. Karachi Building Control Authority 1999 SCMR 2883; Chairman, Selection Committee v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad 1997 SCMR 15 and Engineer-in-Chief Branch v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207 rel.
Judgment & Decree
JAVED IQBAL, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 25-6-2002 passed by learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby appeal preferred on behalf of Muhammad Feroz has been dismissed and order, dated 24-11-2001 whereby he was removed from service has been kept intact.
2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that petitioner was appointed as PTC Teacher against the quota meant for disabled persons on 17-7-2000 after having completion of necessary formalities by the Department Selection Committee. Petitioner, however, was removed from service due to lack of requisite qualifications i.e. F.A. prescribed for PTC teacher. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 8-2-2000 which order was assailed before the learned Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore which has been dismissed vide judgment impugned.
3. Mr. Iqbal A. Qureshi, learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner urged with vehemence that the petitioner was appointed on 17-7-2000 pursuant to advertisement dated 27-6-2000 wherein the prescribed qualification for PTC teacher was mentioned as Matric and not F.A. It is conceded that rectification was made on 25-7-2000 and the qualification of Matric was substituted to that of F.A. which could not affect the appointment of petitioner who was appointed on 17-7-2000 and therefore, his services could not have been terminated under the principle of locus poenitentiae.
4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of petitioner in the light of record of the case. The order impugned has been perused. There is no denying the fact that initial qualification of PTC teacher was F.A. as prescribed by means of instruction/policy No. PA/D.S. (S) Misc. 97, dated 12-3-1997 issued by the Secretary Education Government of the Punjab, Lahore read with Letter No.9113/Admn. 11, dated 27-8-2001 issued by the Director Public Instructions (EE) Punjab, Lahore. It appears from the said policy that academic qualification was enhanced for appointment as PTC teacher from Matric with PTC to that of F.A./F.Sc. with PTC w.e.f. 12-3-1997 the inadvertent omission regarding qualification appearing in the advertisement made in daily "Jang" on 27-6-2000 was rectified by means of another advertisement got published in daily Nawa-e-Waqt on 25-7-2000 making it abundant clear that the prescribed qualification for PTC would be F.A. and not Matric. The petitioner was admittedly not qualified to be appointed as PTC teacher due to lack of qualification as admittedly he was Matric. It is, however, to be noted that the petitioner cannot be held guilty for misconduct because the wrong publication at first instance was made by the department itself. We are not persuaded to agree with learned Advocate Supreme Court on behalf of petitioner that after having appointed the service of petitioner could not have been terminated on the principle of locus poenitentiae because the said principle can only be pressed into service to protect the legal rights based on lawful orders. The principle of locus poenitentiae was available to the Government or relevant Authorities and further Authority which was competent to make order had power to undo it, but such order could not be withdrawn or rescinded once it had taken legal effect and created certain rights in favour of any individual. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Director-General v. Muhammad Abdul Latif 2003 SCMR 410, Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayatullah PLD 1969 SC 407, Chief Secretary v. Sher Muhammad Makhdoom PLD 1991 SC 973, Aman-ul-Haq v. P.P.S.C. PLD 1989 Lah. 196, Government of Sindh v. Niaz Ahmad 1991 SCMR 2293, Muhammad Nawaz v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1420, Abdul Haque Indhar v. Province of Sindh 2000 SCMR 907, Adreshir Cowasjee v. Karachi Building Control Authority 1999 SCMR 2883, Chairman, Selection Committee v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad 1997 SCMR 15 and Engineer-in-Chief Branch v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207.
5. As mentioned hereinabove the petitioner cannot be held guilty for misconduct and accordingly the petition is converted into appeal which is partly accepted and the penalty of removal from service imposed pursuant to the disciplinary action under Rule 6(3) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 is converted to that of termination simplicitor from service due to lack of qualification. The appeal is disposed of in above terms. M.H./M-824/SC Order accordingly.