2011 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD QASIM KHAN, J.

This single order shall dispose of three matters i.e. W.P. No.510 of 2006 "Mst. Yasmeen Begum v. General Manager TEVTA", W.P. No.3125 of 2006 "Syeda Naurin Gilani v. TEVTA" and W.P. No.1564 of 2006 "Asma Noureen v. TEVTA", as all these arise out of almost similar facts and circumstances.

2. Briefly the facts are that pursuant to advertisement for recruitment against vacant seats of different categories the petitioners also submitted their candidatures and after going through the entire recruitment process, Mst. Yasmeen Begum (petitioner in W.P. No.510 of 2006) was appointed as Junior Trade Instructor (Beautician), Mst. Syed Noureen Gillani (petitioner in W . P. No.3125 of 2006) was appointed as Junior Trade Instructor (Sewing) and Mst. Asma Noureen (petitioner in W.P. No.1564 of 2006) was issued appointment letter as Junior Trade Instructor (Tailoring). Pursuant to their respective appointment letters, all the three petitioners individually joined their places of postings against their specific posts. Subsequently anyhow the General Manager (Operations)/respondent issued a letter bearing No.TEVTA/G.M(0)/DM/13 dated 11th of February, 2006 with the subject. "Induction of Staff" and directed the District Manager, Bahawalpur/ Lodhran as under:-- "You are required to advertise the under mentioned posts forthwith. However, staff already working against these posts, will continue to work until the fresh injunction is made. They will also be allowed to allowed to compete provided they are eligible under the rules" This letter has been impugned through these writ petitions on the ground that petitioners fulfilled the requisite criteria and after going through the entire recruitment process, they were validly issued appointment letters and they also joined their respective places of postings, whereas, by way of impugned letter the petitioners were intended to be thrown out of job without assigning any reasons whatsoever, whereas, the petitioners were protected by the principle of locus poenitentiae. Further it is argued that impugned action of the respondent is also violative of principle of audi alteram partem and further more the petitioners have also been treated discriminately as forty four appointments were made against different posts but only the posts of twenty five persons (including the petitioners) were sought to be re-advertised. It is next argued that petitioners have been victimized just for the reason that they had approached this Court in these writ petitions and were working on an injunctive order.

3. The learned Additional Advocate-General on the other hand argued that petitioners were appointed on contract basis, as such, they could not file writ petitions. Further argued that one of the petitioners did not hold the diploma of three years, which was basic requirement for appointment. When this query was put to the official of the respondent present before the Court he remained unable to produce any documentary proof about requirement of such diploma. The learned Law Officer contended that there were numerous complaints about recruitment process by District Manager, Bahawalpur, a proper inquiry was held and Committee held that twenty nine appointments were illegal and irregular, therefore, action was taken for issuance of fresh recruitment process.

4. Heard. Record perused.

5. On court query from the learned Additional Advocate-General and the official of the respondents present before the Court that when some employee is removed from service even on the allegation that their recruitment was illegal and they did not possess the required criteria, would it not amount to imposing a stigma on his service career and in such circumstances whether such employee is not required to be served with show-cause notice before passing an adverse order, they remained unable to come up with any rebuttal and Assistant Manager (Legal)/ representative of the department in clear terms stated that respondent department would be ready to proceed against the petitioners afresh by adopting all the legal formalities. The learned Additional Advocate-General also came forward with the stance that these matters may be disposed of in the light of above statement made on behalf of the official respondents. In any way, as the impugned action has been taken by the respondent without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioners, nor they have been given opportunity of hearing, as such, the same being violative of principle of audi alteram partem, these writ petitions are allowed and the impugned letter dated 11-2-2006 to the extent of these petitioners is set aside. The` respondents may however, if so advised, proceed against the petitioners afresh, of course strictly in accordance with law. H.B.T./Y-4/L Petition allowed.