Mst. NUSRAT FATIMA and others vs DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN.) DIRECTORATE
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the removal of the petitioners from their positions as P.T.C. Teachers in the Education Department. The core legal question was whether the petitioners' removal from service was unlawful given their prior service of over four years and their claim of possessing requisite qualifications. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the initial appointments were fundamentally flawed. Specifically, the Court noted that the appointments were made without any press advertisement, the appointment letters were issued from private residences rather than official offices, and no recruitment committee or merit list existed. The Court held that because the petitioners failed to controvert these findings of fact, which indicated an absence of a transparent and legal recruitment process, there was no substantial question of law of public importance to warrant interference. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, affirming that appointments made in violation of established recruitment procedures are invalid.
- Whether an appointment made without press advertisement and proper recruitment committee oversight is valid?
- Can a service appointment be challenged if it lacks a merit list and proper official issuance?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact by a Service Tribunal where no substantial question of law is raised?
ORDER
' 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.
Cited by 4 cases
- Ali Sher Khan vs District & Sessions Judge, Multan and others 2021 KLR Civil Cases 235, 2021 LHC 2391, 2021 [M] CLR 1089, 2022 PLC (C.S.)
- ALI SHER KHAN Versus DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MULTAN 2022 PLC(CS) 492
- Muhammad Khacian Saleem, etc vs M.S. B.V.H., etc 2015 LHC 3778, 2015 KLR Labour & Service Cases 113
- Muhammad Khaqan Saleem, etc. vs M.S. B.V.H., etc. 2015 LHC 3778