1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD IUBAL Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (W), JHANG and 5 others
| Citation | 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore High Court |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hassan Khan, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IUBAL Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (W), JHANG and 5 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore High Court bench comprising: Irshad Hassan Khan,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD IUBAL Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (W), JHANG and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Masoud Mirra for Petitioner.
- Farooq Bedar, Addl. A: G. and Abdul Samad Hashmi for Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Farooq Bedar, Addl. A: G. and Abdul Samad Hashmi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 251h February, 1990. This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan calls in question the memorandum No. 2804‑17‑18/E‑1, dated 28‑2‑1989 issued by the District Education Officer (Female), Jhang whereby in pursuance of the telephonic order dated 26‑2‑1989 of the Director Education (Schools), Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad, all appointments in Grade‑I effective from 1‑1‑1989 were cancelled.
2. The background of this case is that the petitioner was appointed as Chowkidar Government Girls Primary School, Chah Samundarwala, Mauza Jabbuana, District Jhang, by order dated 17‑1‑1989 of the District Education Officer, Jhang. Consequently, he reported on duty vide joining report dated 21‑1‑1989 and since then he has been regularly performing his duties to the entire satisfaction of his superiors without there being any adverse report for any cause whatsoever. When the petitioner came on duty on 1‑3‑1989, he was informed that the District Education Officer, hang, had received a telephonic order from respondent No. 4 that all appointments made in Grade‑I after 1‑1‑1989 onwards be cancelled.
3. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment is wholly without jurisdiction and mala fide, in that, on the verbal telephonic order of the Director Education, the petitioner's services were not liable to be terminated without fulfilling due formalities. The impugned order is also violative of the principles of natural justice.
4. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was inducted in the service as Chowkidar on 17‑1‑1989. That being so, he has a vested right to continue to serve in that post unless and until the order of appointment is withdrawn in accordance with law. Here no such order has been passed but the petitioner has been removed on telephonic order of the Director Education, Faisalabad, without assigning any reason whatsoever. The impugned order is ex facie violative of the principles of natural justice and also suffers from malice in law. In an identical case, the cancellation of appointment of Class‑IV Government servants has been quashed by this Court through Writ Petition No. 2060 of 1989, decided on 16‑9‑1989. In view of the above, the impugned order is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The writ petition is accepted, but there shall be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./M‑1992/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.