BUSHRA BIBI vs DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE) DISTRICT SIALKOT, and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding the termination of her services. The petitioner was appointed as an untrained Drawing Teacher and her services were terminated due to her failure to acquire the prescribed qualification within the allowed period. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could lawfully challenge her termination on the ground that she acquired the requisite qualification subsequent to the termination of her service. The Supreme Court held that the petition did not involve any substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, and affirmed the termination as just and fair since the petitioner failed to qualify within the reasonable time granted by the department. The key principle laid down is that an employee appointed without prescribed qualifications cannot invalidate a termination effected after failing to acquire such qualifications within a reasonable opportunity, by acquiring the qualification post-termination.
- Whether the termination of a civil servant for failing to acquire the prescribed qualification within a reasonable time is sustainable?
- Can an employee validate their appointment by acquiring the prescribed qualification after the date of termination?
- What constitutes a substantial question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution in service matters?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan
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, 123/2003.
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, 123/2003, 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 versus Secretary, Defence Production Division Rawalpindi (1990 SCM R 1500) and Hameed Akhtar Niazi versus 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 exam. and it was only after shell was terminated from service that claimed to have acquired such qualification in the year 2002. This petition does not involved 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.