2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Mst. NUSRAT FATIMA and others Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN.) DIRECTORATE OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION and others
| Citation | 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. NUSRAT FATIMA and others Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN.) DIRECTORATE OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION and others |
| Primary Law | Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Javed Iqbal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Mst. NUSRAT FATIMA and others Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN.) DIRECTORATE OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.4108-L to 4113-L of 2001).
- Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.-19-L of 2001).
- Abdul Karim Khosa, B. Officer, D.E.O. (F) and Ghulam Haider, Asstt. D.E.O. for Respondent (in all Petitions).
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 6-11-2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeals Nos.2256, 2257, 2258, 2260, 2261, 2263 and 2255 of 2000).
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)
Irregular appointment
No advertisement had been made to press inviting applications for the posts of PTC teachers
Letters of appointment had been issued by District Education Officer from their residence and not by Deputy District Education Officer
Petitioners were neither interviewed nor any merit list was prepared in their cases
Order of removal from service was maintained by Service Tribunal
Petitioners were not able to controvert the findings of fact recorded by Service Tribunal in the judgment to which no exception could be taken
No substantial question of law of public importance was involved to warrant interference by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.
These petitions for leave to appeal are directed against judgment, dated 6-11-2001 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeals Nos.2256, 2257, 2258, 2260, 2261, 2263 and 2255 of 2000.
2. The petitioners were appointed as P.T.C. teachers in the Education Department in the year 1996. They were removed from service in the year 2002. The petitioners filed the representations against the orders of their removal from service which were rejected by the departmental authority. The petitioners filed separate appeals before the Service Tribunal which were dismissed by the consolidated impugned judgment, dated 6-11-2001. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the orders of appointment of the petitioners had been issued by the competent authority and the petitioners performed their duties for more than four years when they were removed from service without adopting proper procedure. The petitioners possessed the requisite qualification for the post of P.T.C. teachers and there is no deficiency in any manner whatsoever.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length. We find that the Tribunal had perused the record of these cases having been produced by the Deputy Education Officers. The Tribunal found from the record that no advertisement had been made to the press inviting applications for the posts and that the letters of the appointment had been issued by the District Education Officer from their residence and not by the Deputy District Education Officer. The Tribunal also observed that the petitioners were neither interviewed by any recruitment committee nor any merit list was prepared in their cases. There was no other record pertaining to the recruitment of the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners was not able to controvert the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment to which no exception can be taken. These petitions do not involve any substantial question of law of public importance to warrant any interference by this Court. These are not fit cases for grant of leave to appeal.
6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed accordingly. M.H./N-120/SC Petition dismissed.