1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

1.???????????????????? Muhammad Akram son of Bashir Ahmad????????????????????? 70 ??????????????????????? resident of Chak No.138/10‑R ??????????????????????? (Writ Petitioner). 2.???????????????????? Muhammad Arif Waseem son of?????????????????????????????????? 45 ??????????????????????? Ghulam Rasool resident of ??????????????????????? Chak No.10/AH. 3.???????????????????? Muhammad Ashraf son of Hakim Ali???????????????? 45 ??????????????????????? resident of Chak No.121/10‑R. 4.???????????????????? Abdur Rauf son of Muhammad Ismail?????????????? 45 ??????????????????????? (respondent No3) ???????????

3. Learned counsel for Muhammad Akram petitioner canvassed that keeping in view the merit list Muhammad Akram petitioner was at the top who could not be ignored for Abdur Rauf respondent No3 who was at Serial No.4 at the merit list and that shelter about the bringing of Writ Petition No3444 of 1993 was taken by the District Education Officer (E.E.)(M), Khanewal simply to help Abdur Rauf respondent No3 illegally whose appointment was devoid of merit and thus liable to be set aside. He added that no relief was granted to Abdur Rauf in Writ Petition No3444 of 1993 which was dismissed in default on 4‑6‑1994. On the contrary the contention of learned counsel for Abdur Rauf respondent No3 is that Muhammad Akram writ petitioner is already working as P.T.C. Teacher and the acceptance of the writ petition would be a harsh order against respondent No

3. He added that the appointment of Abdur Rauf respondent No3 was made after the comments in Writ Petition No.3444 of 1993 were requisitioned. I am of the view that the reasoning adopted by the learned counsel for Muhammad Akram petitioner must prevail. Muss fuss is emanating m the society for the last about one decade that the merit is being ignored and particularly in the ‑Education Department. It is an instance of the aforesaid grievance. The District Education Officer (E.E.)(M), Khanewal/respondent Not referred to the decision in Writ Petition No3444 of 1993 filed by Abdur Rauf and passed the order of his appointment on 28‑10‑1993 in flagrant violation of the merit policy according to which Muhammad Akram petitioner was at Serial No.l by securing 70 marks while Abdur Rauf respondent No.3 was at Serial No.4 by securing 45 marks. The bringing of Writ Petition No‑1444 of 1993 which was dismissed for want of prosecution is of no legal help to Abdur Rauf respondent No.3. Muhammad Akram petitioner has been ignored by respondent No.2 without any legal justification and obviously with mala fide intentions simply to show the soft corner to Abdur Rauf respondent No.3 for the obvious reason that he was out and out desirous to help him. At the time of the appointment of Abdur Rauf respondent No.3, Ch. Bashir Ahmad was posted/working on 28‑10‑1993 as District Education Officer (E.E.)(Male), Khanewal. His mala fide and illegal working in the matter can neither be approved nor appreciated by this Court. The merit list prepared under his supervision was ignored/violated by him and in the larger interest of the nation as well as the Education Department such a working should be avoided even though there may be any pressure from any quarter. Technically two plus two remain four and nobody can enhance or decrease the same even if any type of method is adopted or employed. Such type of illegal orders affecting the Constitutional rights of the citizens definitely bring bad name not only to the person concerned but to the Department which is being headed by him or of which he is the part and parcel as the same is not only violative of the Constitution and law of the land the same also offends the ethics and human rights. In nutshell Muhammad Akram writ petitioner being at the top of the merit list is entitled to be appointed as Oriental Teacher and the impugned order, dated 28‑10‑1993 whereby Abdur Rauf respondent No.3 was appointed as Oriental Teacher is held to be illegal, void and liable to be set aside. I, therefore, hold that this writ petition merits to be accepted as the Constitutional right of the petitioner has been infringed.

4. For what has been said above, I accept this writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 28‑10‑1993 about the appointment of Abdur Rauf respondent No.3 as Oriental Teacher and direct that Muhammad Akram petitioner shall be appointed as the Oriental Teacher forthwith. This order shall be executed within a period of 15 days by the District Education Officer (Elementary Education) (Male), Khanewal under intimation to the Additional Registrar of this Court. It means that Abdur Rauf respondent No. 3 is no more an Oriental Teacher from tomorrow (8‑11‑1995) on the basis of impugned order dated 28‑10‑1993 which has been set aside. It is, however, made clear that the benefits of Oriental Teacher shall be available to Muhammad Akram writ petitioner from the date of his appointment as such on the basis of this judgment.

5. In the circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. H.B.T./M‑2641/L??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.