2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. In the given circumstances, the appellant questioned the validity of restraint order inter alia, on the grounds that he was a duly qualified teacher, had appeared before the duly constituted recruitment committee was declared successful, had joined, the duty and had worked for quite some time, as such, ,the respondents had no authority to restrain him from performing his duties and their action was illegal and merited to be quashed.

4. The respondents in their comments defended their action pleading, inter alia, that in order to examine the vires of the appointments made by Mr. Gorayai, an Appellate Committee was constituted. Mr. Gorayia, aforesaid, did not appear before the Committee and failed to place the record before them. He mysteriously disappeared and disobeyed the directions issued by the Committee, as such the Government was constrained to cancel the appointments made by him. As to the validity of appointment orders, it was pleaded that Mr. Gorayia had not cooperated with the Committee the Government was not in a position to say anything tangible.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no fault has been ascribed to the appellant. He was a genuine candidate and possessed the requisite qualification, had duly appeared before the Committee, was declared successful and had been performing his duties. If Mr. Gorayia was not cooperating with the Committee and had disobeyed its directions, it was none of his faults and Mr. Gorayia's contumacious attitude could not have formed a ground for depriving the appellant of his legitimate rights.

6. The learned District Attorney defended the order claiming that since the Government was not possessed of the record of the case as such, the determination of the , validity or otherwise of the appointments was not possible for the Government.

7. Arguments have been heard and record perused.

8. In this appeal, it is not the case of the Government that the appellant procured the appointment by means of fraud or had relied upon bogus/forged documents. On the other hand, he is possessed of valid appointment order; had joined the assignment and had been working on his post for many days, and the orders stood acted upon. Now when all these conditions were fulfilled, the respondents had no authority to cancel the orders only on the ground that Mr. Gorayia had failed to show the record to the Committee constituted by the Government.

9. In this case, in order to understand and appreciate the correct position, a direction was issued to respondent No.3 vide order dated 14‑9‑1998 to examine the case himself and submit his report to his Court about the genuineness or otherwise of the appointments. He has submitted his detailed report and the gist of the report briefly is that in order to determine the correctness or otherwise of these appointments, a Committee of senior officers was constituted. The Committee consisted of:‑‑ (1)??????? The Chairman Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur. (2)??????? The Director of Education (C) Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. (3)??????? The Director of Education (SE) Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. (4)??????? The Director of Education (EE) Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur, (5)??????? The. District Education Officer (M&F) concerned It was inter alia, directed by this Committee that the Committee at Bahawalnagar shall display the list of successful candidates on 22‑1‑1997. The Committee visited Bahawalnagar on 26‑1‑1997 and the list had not been displayed till them. The Committee found that angry‑mob had gathered around the office of the D.E.O. and there was every likelihood of creation of law and order situation. It has been further submitted by the Director of Education (EE) Bahawalpur (Respondent No.3) that the Committee summoned Mr. Muhammad Hussain Gorayia to appear with the record but he failed to turn up in compliance with the direction, hence it was ordered that all the appointments made by Mr. Gorayia shall stand cancelled: This report equally shows that the Committee had not been able to examine the validity of each appointment order and had passed an omnibus order in pursuance of the non‑cooperation of Mr. Gorayia who can be suspended but later was reinstated by means of order passed by the Chairman of the Tribunal in Appeal No.1620/97 on 23‑6‑1997.

10. From the above discussion it appears that neither the appellant was associated with any such inquiry, nor he was a party to the writ petition in the High Court wherein a direction for scrutiny of the appointments made by Mr. Gorayia was made nor there was any allegation of his credential being forged for bogus. As such, there is nothing on record justifying the restraint order passed against the appellant. Even otherwise, the verbal order is no order in the eyes of law. Reference in this connection may be made to PLD e 1979 Lah. 699 and PLD 1998 Kar. page

180. In this view of the matter, the appeal is hereby accepted. The appellant shall be deemed to be in service right from the date of his appointment and he shall be entitled to all back benefits. H.B.T./22/P.(Sr. trib)?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted,