Arshad All Ex-PTC Teacher vs Deputy District Education Officer (M/EE)
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld the termination of the petitioner's employment as a PTC teacher. The petitioner was removed from service on grounds that his initial appointment lacked merit, was influenced by extraneous considerations, and was made without the required recommendation from the District Recruitment Committee. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the irregularity of the appointment process were legally infirm. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the material, found that the petitioner failed to produce documentary evidence to rebut the Tribunal's findings. Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal's decision was just, fair, and in accordance with the law. The Court declined to grant leave to appeal, determining that no substantive question of law of public importance was involved. However, the Court directed the implementation of the Tribunal's previous directions and ordered that the salary and benefits already paid to the petitioner for the period of service performed should not be recovered.
- Can a service appointment made on extraneous considerations without proper recruitment committee recommendations be upheld?
- Does the failure to produce documentary evidence to rebut findings of fact by a Service Tribunal justify the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal?
- Is a public servant entitled to retain salary and benefits received for the period of service performed prior to termination based on irregular appointment?
- Punjab Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules
ORDER
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.--This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.7.1999, passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore (hereinafter called the Tribunal), in Appeal No. 2721/1997.
2. Brief facts are that the petitioner was appointed as -PTC teacher vide appointment Order No. 1258/E dated 3.10.1995. He was, however, removed from service by order. Dated 13.2.1997, passed by respondent No. 2 on the ground that he, alongwith other recruiters, was not appointed on merits but his selection was made purely on extraneous motives. No proper test interview was held; the selection process was not transparent and that the District Recruitment Committee made no recommendations for the appointment of the petitioner.
3. It is not necessary to go into the detailed history of the case. Suffice it to say that the petitioner being aggrieved with his termination, approached the Tribunal by means of an appeal for redress of his grievance. The Tribunal, after thorough Security of the material on record, took the view that the appointment of the petitioner, was made on extraneous considerations. It was further held that the petitioner was not appointed on the recommendations of the Recruitment Committee.
4. The petitioner, who appeared in person, vehemently argued that the finding recorded by the Tribunal is wholly incorrect, in that, his appointment was made on merits with recommendation of the Recruitment Committee and in accordance with the prescribed procedure laid down under the Punjab Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules.
5. We have heard the petitioner and perused the material on record. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The petitioner has not been able to produce any documentary evidence to rebut the findings records against him in the impugned order.
Furthermore, C.Ps. Nos. 1407 to 1411U1999, 1470 to 1474/1999, etc. Arising out of the impugned judgment have been dismissed by this Bench by order of even date.
6. Clearly the impugned order is just, fair and in accordance with law. No substantive question of law of public importance is involved warranting grant of leave to appeal. We, however, direct that the directions contained in paragraph 12 of the impugned judgment be implemented in letter and spirit within six months from today under intimation to the Registrar of this Court. We also direct that the salary paid to the petitioner and benefits obtained by him as per his entitlement for the period he had performed his duties shall not be recovered by the respondents.
6. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave declined . Leave to Appeal Declined.