1980 PLP 2123 (CLC)

Date of hearing : 25th February, 1980. This order shall also dispose of two other Petitions Nos, 2704IS/75 and 1061/S/78, which involve the identical question. The petitioner was an employee of Government College of Com merce, Lahore. The Government promulgated Martial Law Regulation No. 118 on Ist of April, 1972 whereby all the privately managed colleges were nationalised. It was stated in para 7 (2) as under:- As from Ist day of October, 19.72, the teachers of all privately managed colleges and privately managed schools shall be entitled to the same scale of pay to which the teachers of equivalent qualifications, seniority and experience in the Colleges and Schools maintained by the Government are entitled."

3. On 4th September, 1972, the Government issued a Notification No. S O (NC) 6th March 1972, whereby the services of the petitioner were continued in the same position.

4. On 6th of June, 1975, another Notification was issued in partial modification of the one dated 4th of September, 1972, and all other notifications issued thereafter in that behalf, to say that persons, mentioned in Schedules A and B attached to that Notification, were appointed as lecturers in NPS 17 w. e. f. Ist September, 1972, in their college under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 from the same date. The petitioner challenges that Notification through the present writ petition.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner is not covered by the Punjab Nationalized Colleges (Men's and Women's Section) Teaching Posts Rules 1974 dated 26th September, 1974 as he is an employee of a professional college and not a `nationalized college' as defined therein. It is further stated that as a guarantee had been provided to him under para. 7 (2) of M.L.R. 118, the respondent was obliged to consider his qualification etc. thereunder to fix his position.

6. The learned Assistant Advocate-General appears with instructions to state that though the Rules of 1974 referred to above do not apply to the professional colleges yet the petitioner should have approached the Education Department or the Governor with facts and representations so that the matter could be sorted out. It is argued that this petition i5 premature.

7. The position taken by the respondent amounts to conceding petitioner's claim. It is a question, however, in which an application of mind and consideration of the criteria under para 7 (2) of Martial Law Regulation No. 118 was necessary. This has not been done and the petitioner has not produced any material before them to decide the matter under para. 7 (2) referred to above. The Secretary or the other competent authority shall. therefore, hear the petitioner, permit him to produce any evidence that he might like, in order to show if he should be given a higher position, in accordance with law.

8. For the reasons given above, these petitions are allowed. The Secretary Education or other competent authority shall hear the petitioners and decide their dispute in accordance with law, as observed above. The Secretary shall, however, maintain the status quo till his decision. There will, however, be no order as to costs. M.Y.M. Petitions accepted.