2007 PLC (C (PLP)

Brief facts leading to this I.C.A. are that in the year 1995 certain posts of Elementary English Teachers (BS-14) under the administrative control of respondent No.1 had fallen vacant to be filled in by a method of direct recruitment. The appellant applied for the appointment as Elementary English Teacher. She was appointed as Elementary English Teacher in BS-14 by respondent No.1 vide order, dated 2-9-1995 but the same had never been conveyed to her.

2. In the month of October, 1999, a person posing himself to be a peon of the office of respondent No.1 paid visit at the house of the appellant and told her that she has been selected and she should join at the place of posting. The petitioner went to the office of respondent No.1 and confirmed the above information. The petitioner also came to know that respondents Nos.1 and 2 had been drawing her salaries with her forged signatures and they had been passing transfer orders as well as they had been granting leave to the petitioner but all these proceedings were fictitious in nature. In fact the petitioner never received even a single benefit from the respondents and she neither joined service at any school nor she performed duties at any time.

3. The petitioner requested the respondents to allow her to join and perform her duties as Elementary English Teacher but they had refused to do so. Therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.412 of 1999 which was dismissed on the ground of laches by the learned Single Judge in Chamber vide order, dated 3-5-2006. Against the said order, the appellant has filed this I.C.A.

4. On 30-11-2006, a pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents. In response to the said notice, the learned A.A.-G. had appeared on 8-1-2007 and stated that inquiry proceedings are underway and likely to be concluder' within a week. On 18-1-2007, the learned Law Officer had sought yet another adjournment in order to file a copy of the inquiry report. On 31-1-2007, the learned Law Officer had placed on record photocopy of the inquiry report of the Deputy District Education Officer (W.EE.) Tehsil Shujabad District Multan. The Inquiry Officer in his inquiry report, found the allegations levelled by the appellant against the respondents contained in the writ petition to be valid, but declared the appointment order of the appellant as bogus because the same was not recorded in the despatch register.

5. It is stated by the Special Secretary Education present in Court that the original record of the appointments could not be traced and photocopies of the same have been traced and the appointment of the appellant in the list of the selected candidates is not recorded nor any appointment letter is available whereby the appointment of the appellant has been made.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is. M.A. B.Ed. and is fully qualified to be appointed as Elementary English Teacher and that on the basis of her qualification, the appellant was selected and appointment order was issued, therefore, she had a right to join and get employment on the basis of the order dated 2-9-1995.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the order, dated 3-5-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber as well as the inquiry report of the Deputy District Education Officer (W.EE.) Tehsil Shujabad District Multan.

8. In fact the appellant was appointed as Elementary English Teacher in BS-14 by respondent No.1 District Education Officer (W-EE), Multan vide order, dated 2-9-1995, a copy of which is placed on the file of Writ Petition No.412 of 1999 as Annexure "A". Even in her application dated 27-6-2006 (Annexure "B" of the inquiry report of the Deputy District Education Officer (W-EE), Tehsil Shujabad District Multan) respondent No.2 stated that the appointment order of the appellant was also issued. Perusal of the recommendations mentioned in the inquiry report of the Deputy District Education Officer (W.EE) Tehsil Shujabad, Multan also reveals that during the period of respondent No.2 as A.E.O., the petitioner was appointed and she was responsible to certify the validity of the appointment order of the petitioner but she failed to do so. But as the appointment order was never conveyed to the appellant, she neither joined service at any school nor she performed her duties at any time.

9. So far as the illegal appointment of the appellant is concerned, it is observed that once the appointee is qualified' to be appointed, his services cannot be subsequently terminated on the basis of lapses and irregularities committed by the department itself. As the irregularities were committed in the appointment of the appellant by the officials of the department, the appellant could not be made to suffer for the illegalities and irregularities committed. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Zakat/Social Welfare Department, Peshawar and another v. Sadullah Khan 1996 SCMR 413 and Muhammad Zahid Iqbal and others v. DEO Mardan and others 2006 SCMR 285.

10. In view of the above circumstances, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order, dated 3-5-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chamber is set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to join her duty and she will be entitled for the salaries from the date of her joining the post. However, arrears of her salaries shall not be paid to her, as is undertaken by her learned counsel before this Court.

11. The appeal stands finally disposed of in the above terms. M.H./A-85/L Appeal allowed.