SHAUKAT ALI vs DISTRICT GOVERNMENT through Nazim/Chairman Selection

ORDER

' The brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that petitioner submitted an application before the respondents for the post in question. The petitioner appeared in the interview and test held by the respondents. The petitioner was selected by the respondents. The appointment letter was also issued by the respondents to the petitioner on 30-9-2002. The petitioner in obedience of the appointment letter has joined the services of the respondents as Elementary School Educator in terms of the appointment letter. The petitioner performed the duties till 11-6-2003 when the services of the petitioner was terminated by the respondents. The respondents issued notice to the petitioner for the recovery of the salary received by the petitioner for the said period. The petitioner being aggrieved filed this Constitution al petition.

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner submits that respondents have no lawful authority to recover the amount in question from the petitioner for the period for which the petitioner has performed the duties of the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner wants enforcement of the contract through this Constitutional petition therefore, Constitutional petition is not maintainable.

He further submits that the petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands as the qualification documents of the petitioner were found bogus and consequently petitioner's services were terminated by the respondents vide order dated 11-6-2003. He further urges that the petitioner secured the appointment by concealing the material facts from the respondents and did not provide original certificate to the respondents at the time of joining the post in question. The respondents directed the petitioner to provide the original certificates. The respondents sent the original certificates of the petitioners for verification purposes to the concerned University. The University declared his P.T.C. Certificate as bogus one vide letter dated 5-7-2003, therefore, petitioner is not entitled any discretionary relief.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

5. It is admitted fact that the respondents allowed the petitioner to join the services of the respondents and did not secure the verification of the documents of the petitioner well in time. The respondents have taken lot of time qua verification of the documents of the petitioner as is evident from the report and parawise comments filed by the respondents, which reveals that the respondents received verification qua his documents on 5-7-2003. It appears that the respondents did not send an officer/official to verify the documents of the petitioner from the concerned University and did not even use the modern technology of Computer E-Mail, U.M.S. This fact brings the case in the year that the petitioner had performed the duties of the respondents as a teacher on account of contributory negligence of the respondents. The question of law qua such situation has already been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jalaluddin's case (PLD 1992 SC 207).

The relevant observation is as follows:-- "However, as the respondent had received the amount on the bona fide belief, the appellant is not entitled to recover the amount drawn by the respondent during the period when thg latter remained in the filed. Learned counsel for the appellants had submitted that the appellants had drawn Rs.12,890.86 (Rupees twelve thousand, eight hundred, ninety and paisa eighty six only) during this period but the Engineer-in-Chief had directed the recovery of Rs.1,860.00 only (Rupees one thousand, eight hundred, sixty and paisa nil only). We consider that as far as the recovery of the amount in question is concerned, the principle of locus poenitentiae would be applicable and the appellants are not entitled to recover the amount. The appellants have themselves taken a liberal view and the recovery of only 12 months is being made."

' In view of the dictum laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment the action of the respondents is without lawful authority, therefore, the impugned notice is set aside.

Consequently the writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs.