1975 SCMR 515 (PLP)

4. Naslra Ii;batlam, B. A., B. Ed.i (Leave arrangement , V. Teacheress). The minutes of this meeting end with the following words :‑ "Issue orders accordingly" But it appears that this direction was not followed and no orders issued, presumably because the present petitioner made representation to the Administrator, the Controlling Authority and the inspectress of School Sargodha Division, against the selection of tile respondent No.

3. On these representations, the Inspectress of School, Sargodha Division, on the 18th March, 1972, informed the Administrator, Municipal Committee to the following effect :‑ "In view of the data supplied by her, she is entitled to be posted as Headmistress of newly upgraded Middle School on the grounds that she passed her B. Ed. examination earlier and having higher qualification than Miss Kalsoom, the seniority of J. V. grade has got no effect on the appointment of Headmistress in B. Ed. grade." Thereafter, on the 31st August, 1972, the Administrator, Municipal Committee, on further representations of the petitioner, informed her that no appointment to the post had been made, as the question of the upgrada tion of the school was still under consideration. The recognition, it appears, came on the 31st March, 1973. The Controlling Authority, 8. e., the Deputy Commissioner, Lyallpur, hereafter, on the 9th August 1973, directed to Administrator, Municipal Committee, Gojra, to appoint a suitable candidate for the post of Headmistress of the upgraded institution. In compliance with the above direction, applications were invited through the Employment Exchange. The respondent No. 3 also submitted her application. Thereafter, the administrator interviewed the candidates, and, by his order dated 6‑6‑1974, appointed the present petitioner as the Headmistress. It appears that a Selection Board was constituted to interview the candidates on the 19th January 074, consisting of the Administrator, the Assistant Director (Local Government and the District Education Officer but the other two members did not attend the meriting of the Selection Board. Hence the Administrator alone made the selection. The respondent No. 3 protested against this appointment and made a representation to the Administrator as well as the Deputy Commissioner on the 22nd July 1974. Since she did not receive any redress, she came to the Lahore High Court in the writ jurisdiction in August 1974. A learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court allowed her petition and set aside the order of the Administrator appointing the present petitioner on the 30th November, 1974, as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The High Court has taken the view that the initial selection made in February 1972, in accordance with tine Municipal Committee Service Rules, 1969, was a valid selection and the Administrator had no jurisdiction either to set it aside or not to give effect to it. If, it s, suggested that the Controlling Authority being a superior authority had the power to set aside such selection then the action of the Controlling Authority, i. e., the Deputy Commissioner, was also bad because he did so without hearing respondent No. 3 and acted contrary to the principles of natural justice. The second selection, according to the learned Judge of the high Court, was no selection at all, because, the Administrator alone could not constitute the Selection Board. The contention raised before the High Court that the first selection of 1972 was only a provisional selection for the purposes of obtaining the upgradation of the school and not for the actual appointment of Head mistress was repelled by the High Court on the ground that such an argument, which would amount to an admission of a fraudulent practice, could not be allowed to be raised by a Local Body. The petitioner has now come up to this Court for special leave and it is contended on her behalf that the judgment of the High Court is directly it conflict with the views expressed by this Court in the case of Dr. Habibur Rahman v. West Pakistan Public Service Commission (P L D 1973 S C 144) in so far as the High Court had failed to take notice of the fact that the respondent No. 3 herself had applied for the post in 1974, appeared at the interview held by the Administrator on the 19th January, 1974 and, therefore, she had no right to object to the selection made thereafter. The facts in the case of Dr. Hahibur Rahman are clearly distinguishable. In that case, the earlier selection, as a result of which two persons were appointed, was not challenged by Dr. Habibur Rahman but a second selection made for filling posts which were left vacant, was sought to be challenged alongwith the first selection. It was in those circumstances that dais Court held "He had treated the matter of the first selection as past and closed by unconditionally taking part in the second selection." In the present case no appointment was made as a result of the firs) selection. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 3 had any reason to challenge the validity of the order of the first selection. Her challenge was confined to the validity of the second selection on the basis of her success in the first selection. Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has next contended that the High Court has practically appointed the respondent No. 3 which it could not rip in the writ jurisdiction. This interpretation of the order of the High Court is also incorrect. All that the High Court B has clone is that it has se: aside the order of appointment and if there is no valid appointment then it will be open to the authorities concerned to hold another selection in accordance with the rules of the Service, constitute a Selection Board and make the appointment. The complaint that the High Court has appointed Mst, Kalsoom Akhtar appears to be unwarranted. If the Municipal authorities are treating it Is such, it is their fault. It cannot furnish a ground for grant of special leave to appeal. This petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.