BUSHRA BIBI vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE) DISTRICT SIALKOT and anothers
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed her service appeal against the termination of her services as an untrained Drawing Teacher. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could challenge her termination after acquiring the prescribed qualification subsequent to the termination of her service, and whether the case involved a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was not qualified at the time of her appointment and failed to acquire the prescribed qualification within the reasonable grace period of over six years provided by the department, her termination was justified and the petition raised no substantial question of law of public importance. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused, laying down the principle that failure to attain required qualifications within the permitted time renders termination lawful and does not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction.
- Whether an untrained teacher whose services are terminated for failing to acquire the prescribed qualification can challenge the termination after obtaining the qualification subsequent to the removal?
- Does a service matter concerning termination for lack of qualifications involve a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J. --- The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from judgment, dated 10-12-2003, passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No,123 of 2003.
2. The petitioner was appointed as untrained Drawing Teacher. Her services were terminated w,e,f, 31-12-2001 on the ground that she had failed to acquire the prescribed qualification. She preferred Service Appeal No,123 of 2003, which was dismissed by the Tribunal through the impugned judgment, dated 10-12-2003.
3. The learned counsel argued that there was no requirement of law to acquire requisite qualification for the post within a certain period. Therefore, no objection could be taken if the petitioner had acquired such qualification subsequently to the termination of her service. The learned counsel placed reliance on the cases of Rehmat Ali Shah v. Secretary, Defence Production, Rawalpindi 1990 SCM R 1500 and Hameed Akhtar Niazi v. The Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan and others 1996 SCM R 1185.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also perused the available record. Admittedly the petitioner was not qualified at the time of her appointment.
However, the department had shown grace to permit the petitioner to acquire the qualification within reasonable time of more than six years. She failed to qualify the prescribed examination and it was only after she was A terminated from service that claimed to have acquired such qualification in the year 2002. This petition does not involve any substantial question of law of public importance within the meaning of Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The impugned order is just and fair to which no exception can be taken.
5. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.