2008P2005 (PLP)

JUSTICE (RETD.) RUSTA.M ALI MALIK (CHAIRMAN).

The appellant has filed this appeal on the plea that he was appointed as Arabic Teacher on 18-11-1986 in BS-9. He passed the B.Ed. Examination on 31-1-1990 and applied for S.S.T. Grade out of 50% in-service quota on 26-2-1994 as he was eligible for the award of S.S.T. Grade (BS-16). But he was awarded the said grade on 17-4-1999. On the other hand respondent No.3 was appointed as E.S.T. on 4-2-1987. He passed his B.Ed. Examination on 2-12-1990 and he was given S.S.T. Grade on 15-5-1995. The appellant was senior to respondent No.3 but he was not' considered for S.S.T. Grade in 1995 and in this way he had been wrongly discriminated against. He came to know about the promotion of respondent No.3 on 30-4-2005. He filed departmental appeal on 30-5-2005 and after waiting for the expiry of statutory period of 90 days he filed Service Appeal No.2273 of 2005 which was disposed of by this Tribunal with the direction to the Departmental Authorities to decide his departmental appeal within 60 days. The Departmental Appellate Authority decided his appeal on 19-4-2006 and hence he filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal on 13-5-2006.

2. Arguments have been heard and record perused. Respondent No.3 has taken the plea that he was awarded S.S.T. Grade on 15-5-1995 against 50% quota of in-service candidates, according to the merit of in-service candidates maintained at District level. The real contestant in this case is respondent No.2 who has taken the plea that the appellant was not eligible for appointment as S.S.T. on 15-5-1995. His case was discussed in the meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee and it was decided that he was not entitled for appointment. His case was referred to the Government 'for consideration and decision as to whether the qualification of B.Ed. (Arabic) was equivalent to B.Ed. (General) for the purpose of appointment as S.S.T. Grade. Government issued clarification vide letter, dated (sic). The case of the appellant was considered by the Selection Committee in the light of the advice issued by the Government and he was appointed as S.S.T. on 17-4-1999. However, the qualification of B.Ed. (Arabic) had not been declared equivalent to B.Ed. (General) and so he was not eligible for appointment as SST at the time of previous recruitment process and hence the claim of the appellant for appointment from the back date is not genuine because the right had accrued to him when the equivalence of his educational qualification was determined by the Government and which date is 4-8-1998. The case of the respondent-Department is that qualification of B.Ed. (Arabic) had not been declared equivalent to B.Ed. (General), so he was not eligible for appointment as S.S.T. at the time of previous recruitment process and hence the present claim of the appellant for appointment from the back date is not genuine and that his case is of appointment and not of promotion as the right had accrued to him only when the equivalence had been determined by the Government and his case was rightly ignored at the time of appointment in 1995 by the concerned Selection Committee as the appellant was not eligible for appointment as S.S.T. on the basis of B.Ed. (Arabic), which was not the prescribed, qualification under the relevant rules. Therefore the concerned Selection Committee had considered his case after decision of eligibility by the Government and had given appointment to the appellant in accordance with the rules.

3. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced from both sides and have also perused the record. Vide a letter dated 4-8-1998, the Directorate of Education (SE), Rawalpindi was informed that the Education Department after considering the case was of the view that B.Ed. (Arabic) degree awarded by the Allama Iqbal Open University was equivalent to the B.Ed. degree from any other University and hence ,the case of the appellant should be processed accordingly. Obviously in the light of the aforesaid directive of the Education Department, proper seniority list was to be prepared and in which the Teachers possessing the degree of B.Ed. (Arabic) were to be treated at par with those possessing the degree of B.Ed. (General). The respondents have no valid ground to controvert the assertion of the appellant that as respondent No.3 was junior to him, therefore he is entitled to the grant of S.S.T. Grade when his junior was awarded the said grade.

4. In view of what has been stated above, this appeal is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside and it is directed that the appellant be awarded the S.S.T. Grade from the date when his junior was awarded the said grade. H.B.T./45/PST Appeal Accepted.